HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-10; City Council; 13800; Rancho Carrillo Village J and KP. -
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGtdDA BILL
AB# /?; $?-00 TITLE: _ DEPT. HD.
MTG. 9110196 RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” AND “K”
CT 93-011PUD 95-05 ClTYAlN. @2
DEPT. PLN %ItL CITY MGR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. %$ -J&/ APPROVING the
Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for Ranch0 Carrillo Villages “J” and
“K” - CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On May 15, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
recommended approval with a 6-O vote (Nielsen absent) of a Tentative Tract Map and
Planned Unit Development (CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05) for a 186 lot subdivision consisting of
181 single family dwelling units and 27 affordable housing units as second dwelling units
incorporated into the single family dwelling units, 4 open space lots, and 1 future lot
(Village “S”). The project site is within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and is more
specifically located south of Palomar Airport Road, on either side of future Melrose Drive
and north of the Ranch0 Carrillo park site in Local Facilities Management Zone 18 as
shown on the attached Location Map. The project is in compliance with the General Plan,
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, Ranch0 Carrillo Final Environmental Impact Report, Ranch0
Carrillo Hillside Development Permit, the Subdivision ordinance, and the Planned
Development Ordinance.
The adjacent property owners of Bressi Ranch requested a 30 day continuance to allow for
the resolution of off-site facility issues. The Planning Commission did not honor this
request due to recognition that 1) the project would be decided by the City Council
subsequent to this time frame, 2) the recommendation of approval enhanced the project’s
ability to resolve facility issues by providing the land owner with an increased certainty that
an entitlement may be forthcoming, and 3) the entitlement conditions the project to pursue
such resolution. No other comments were received at the Planning Commission public
hearing. For the complete text of the Commission’s discussion and comments, please
refer to the Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 1996.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is located within the boundaries of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP
139(E)) which regulates the entire 417.9 acre site. The direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts from the future development, including the mass grading of the
Master Plan area, have been analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-
04) certified by the City Council on July 27, 1993. Additional project level studies have
been conducted including a supplemental noise analysis and soils contamination
assessment. These studies provide more focused and detailed project level analysis and
indicate that additional environmental impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 91-
04 would not result from the implementation of the project. \
e h . 1
iAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /3, @P-t? #
l This project qualifies as subsequent development to both the Ranch0 Carrillo EIR and the
City’s MEIR as identified in Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance on
March 25, 1996. The recommended and applicable mitigation measures of Final EIR 91-
04 are included as conditions of approval for this project. With regard to air quality and
circulation impacts, the City’s MEIR found the cumulative impacts of the implementation of
projects consistent with the General Plan are significantly adverse due to regional factors,
therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The project is
consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional environmental
document is required.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
Facility Zone I 18 II
Local Facilities Management Plan I Complete II
Growth Control Point I 3.2 du/ac II
Net Density
Special Taxes
Village K - 3 du/ac
Village J - 3.7 du/ac
CFD No. 1
FISCAL IMPACT:
All public facilities required to serve the proposed project will be available prior to or
concurrent with development as mandated by the facilities plan for Local Facilities
Management Zone 18. No negative fiscal impacts will be incurred by the City since the
developer is responsible for all costs of ensuring the availability and construction of all
public facilities.
1. City Council Resolution No. %b -30 /
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3931 and 3932
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 15, 1996
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 15, 1996.
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTIONNO. 96-301
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” AND “K” LOCATED
SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, ADJACENT TO
FUTURE MELROSE DRIVE, AND NORTH OF THE RANCH0
CARRILLO PARR SITE
/ ,,,’
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” AND “K”
CASE NO: CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on May 15, 1996, hi! / Id a duly noticed
public hearing as pres 93-01 and Planned
Unit Development 95 and adopted Planning Commission Resolu No. 3931 and 3932
recommending to the Cl ouncil that they be app
the City Council did o , 1996,
proposed tentative tract
onsidering all testimony
sidered all factors
OLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
ns are true and correct.
nditions of the Planning Commission in Resolutions No.
the findings and conditions of the City Council in this
Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development (CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-
e approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 393 1 and
on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The
provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for
Judicial Review” shall apply:
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,,- h
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT” /
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must bk sought
is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, dhich has
been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad~unicipal
Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper se
review must be filed in the appropriate court
nineteenth day following the date on which this
final; however, if within ten days after the decisio
request for the record of the deposit in an amo
the estimated cost or preparation of such record, ime within which
such petition may be filed in court is extend not later than the
thirtieth day following the date on which the re is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his att of record, if he has
one. A written request for the preparati of the record of the
proceedings shall be filed with the City k, City of Carlsbad, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Cali
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOP
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
at a regular meeting of the City
day of) 1996,
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, May
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
4
-2-
EXHBIT 2
RANCH0 CARRILLO
VILLAGES “J” & “K”
CT 93-01
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3931
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE
186 LOTS INCLUDING 181 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 4 OPEN
SPACE LOTS, AND 1 FUTURE LOT (A PORTION OF
VILLAGE S) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, NORTH OF
POINSETTIA LANE, ON EITHER SIDE OF FUTURE
MELROSE DRIVE WITHIN THE RANCH0 CARRILLO
MASTER PLAN BOUNDARIES.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
CASE NO: CT 93-01
wit:
WHEREAS, UDC Homes has filed a verified application for certain property to
Portion of Section 24, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian and a portion of Sections 18 and 19,
Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California.
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map approval as shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“CC”, dated May 15, 1996, on file in the Planning
Department and incorporated herein by this reference as provided by Chapter 20 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of May, 1996, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
. . . .
cp
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Tentative Tract, CT
93-01, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinw:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that it is a
residential, low-medium density, single family subdivision designed in accordance
with the Subdivision and Planned Development Ordinances and in compliance with
the recommendations of the required technical studies for soils and drainage, as well
as provide all public improvements necessary to serve the demand generated by the
development.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General Plan
and the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the project is consistent with single family development designated
for Villages J and K by the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and the mass grading plan
approved by Hillside Development Permit, HDP 91-17.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in
that the project has been designed and structured such that there are no conflicts
with any established easements.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the area’s dominant
western wind patterns/solar radiation patterns will allow utilization of natural
heating and cooling opportunities.
PC RESO NO. 3931 -2- ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7.
8.
9.
10.
That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that all applicable biological mitigation measures required by Final EIR
91-04 have been incorporated into the project and/or added to the project as
conditions of approval.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the sewer and
drainage requirements of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and EIR 91-04 have
been considered and appropriate sewer and drainage facilities have been designed
and will be secured. In addition to City Engineering Standards and compliance
with the City’s Master Sewer and Drainage Plans, National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge
violations.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for Ranch0
Carrillo Villages J and K, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General
Plan, based on the following:
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Residential
Low Medium (RLM) land use designation since the proposed density of 3.0
(Village K) and 3.7 (Village J) du/acre is below the density range of 0 - 4 du/acre
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
b. Circulation - The project is conditioned to complete all necessary onsite and
offsite roadway improvements prior to occupancy of any unit in each phase.
Additionally, all roadway improvements to serve the Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Plan must be guaranteed and substantially completed prior to occupancy of
units in Village J and K.
C. Noise - The project provides mitigation to reduce noise levels to 60 dBA
within the usable yard area of lots abutting future Melrose Drive, and the
project is conditioned to require compliance with the 45 dBA interior noise
standard.
d. Housing - That the project is consistent with Policy 3.6.a of the Housing Element
of the General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has
been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and
deed restrict 4 three bedroom dwelling units in Village E and 27 second
dwelling units in Villages J and K as affordable to lower-income households.
The provision of onsite affordable housing units results in a project density
n PC RESO NO. 3931 -3- %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which exceeds the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units
per acre and requires approval of a density increase. The proposed density
increase is therefore consistent with Policy 3.7h enabling density increases
and Program 3.7i allowing discretionary consideration of density increases
through the processing of a site development plan in accordance with and
implemented by Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The proposed density increase of 27 units above the Growth Management
Control Point for the purpose of providing 27 affordable second dwelling
units onsite to satisfy 90% of the project’s inclusionary requirement is
consistent with Policy 3.8 allowing excess dwelling units to be allocated with
the top priority being housing for low and very low income households.
e. Open Space and Conservation - The project is consistent with the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan and Zone 18 LFMP in that 186 acres of performance
standard open space will be provided throughout the Master Plan.
f. Public safety - In accordance with the Ranch0 Carrillo mass grading plan
(HDP 91-17) and the Villages J and K grading plan and final soils report, all
unacceptable soil conditions shall be mitigated to facilitate construction.
Standard engineering grading conditions will be required for all requisite
grading.
11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies, and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved
unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project.
In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final
map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District
Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in
the San Marcos Unified School District. In accordance with the Zone 18
LFMP special conditions for schools, the project is conditioned to require
that an acceptable school site is deeded to the San Marcos Unified School
District if it is warranted and that a financing plan be approved by San
Marcos Unified School District guaranteeing the construction of necessary
elementary school facilities in Zone 18 prior to final map recordation or
grading or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first.
C. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
PC RESO NO. 393 1 -4- 9
. ’
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18.
14. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent development as described in CEQA Guidelines
15 168(c)(2) and (e), and 15 183;
b. the project is consistent with the General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01) and
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan EIR (EIR 91-04);
C. there were EIRs certified in connection with the prior 1994 General Plan
Update and Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIRs;
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist.
15. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 and EIR 91-04 which are appropriate to this
Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
16. MEIR 93-01 found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and
adverse; therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding
considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those
effects, no additional environmental document is required.
17. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April, 1994, in that as conditiqned the applicant
shall record a notice concerning aircraft noise.
conditions of approval.
d. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
PC RESO NO. 3931 -5- \"
w
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18.
19.
20.
21.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-3 84.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
The project, as designed, implements certain objectives and mitigation measures
established by the General Plan Master EIR to reduce cumulative air quality and
circulation impacts as applicable to a residential project of this scale. These include:
providing links to public sidewalk systems that connect with transportation
corridors, and future schools, parks, and trail systems; providing for safe pedestrian
and bicycle movements within the project: and designing the project to
accommodate pedestrian spaces as well as proposed parking areas and building
locations
Lot 135 cannot be served adequately with a public street due to unfavorable
conditions resulting from its location adjacent to the intersection of two arterial
roadways which limits safe direct ingress and egress to those roadways from this lot
which would thereby preclude the necessity of the panhandle configuration.
Further the relocation of the alignment of Poinsettia Lane to the north at the
direction of the school district limited the frontage available for Lot 135 at the cul-
de-sac of “B” Street. The proposed lot configuration does not affect the ability to
provide full public street access to other properties within the same block.
Planninp Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Tentative Tract
Map for the single family lot subdivision project entitled “Ranch0 Carrillo Villages J
and K”, Exhibits “A”-” CC” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this
reference, dated May 15, 1996, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is
authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and
modifications to the approved Documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and conform to City Council’s final action on the project. Development shall
occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of CT 93-01 is granted subject to the approval of PUD 95-05 and SDP 95-13.
CT 93-01 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 3931 and 3932 dated May 15,1996.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
. . . .
PC RESO NO. 3931 -6- \\
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24-inch x 36-inch, mylar copy
of the Tentative Map/Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The
Tentative Map/Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The
Map/Plan copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building,
grading, final map, or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
5. The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such
approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
6. The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,
1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development
fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities
and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities
fee dated September 5, 1995, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
7. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits, including but not limited to the
following:
a.
b.
C.
d.
Prior to recordation of a final map within Zone 18, a parks agreement
between the City of Carlsbad and Zone 18 property owners shall be entered
into;
All future development in Zone 18 will be required to construct any future
Zone 18 storm drain facilities identified in the current Drainage Master Plan
and revised Drainage Master Plan as determined by the City Engineer;
Prior to recordation of first final map, a comprehensive financing plan
guaranteeing the construction of circulation improvements including
Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, and El Fuerte shall be adopted by the
City Council.
Prior to recordation of any final map, the deeding of an acceptable school site
to the San Marcos Unified School District, if it is determined that a school
site is warranted and a financing plan approved by San Marcos Unified
School District guaranteeing the construction of the necessary elementary
school facilities in Zone 18. As provided in the Zone 18 LFMP, if any
reimbursement and/or school fee credits are to be given, the school
agreement/financing plan shall provide a mechanism to do so.
8. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans
PC RESO NO. 3931 -7- 1%
L ’
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
4
shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and
debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement and grading plans.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer and successive owners shall
agree to hold the city or any other public service agency harmless from liability for
any damage to the driveway of Lot 135, when being used to perform a public
service.
This approval shall be null and void if the property subject to this approval is not annexed
to the City of Carlsbad CFD No. 1 within 60 days of the approval. Additionally,
annexation must occur prior to the issuance of any grading, building or other permit.
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all
times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be
limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets.
“Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an
irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement
for the citywide trail shown on the tentative map located within Lots 118,
185 and 186. If prior to final map the City has a funding mechanism for
trial maintenance and liability and accepts the dedication of the trail
easement, the Developer shall be required to construct the trail
improvements prior to occupancy of the first unit and the City will assume
responsibility for trail maintenance and liability. If however, prior to final
map the city does not have a financing mechanism in place to fund
maintenance and liability for the city wide trail system, the Developer
shall be required to provide adequate security through bonds, letters of
credit, cash or other acceptable security for the trail improvements.”
Prior to final map, the applicant shall establish Master and/or Village homeowner’s
associations and corresponding covenants, conditions and restriction. Said CC&Rs shall
be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. The following items shall be
included in the CC&Rs:
Master HOA
a. Master Homeowner’s Association maintenance of the Recreational Vehicle
Storage Lot (Lot 104 of CT 93-04).
\f3
PC RESO NO. 3931 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b. The CC&Rs shall prohibit the storage or parking of recreational vehicles
within any of the Villages except in approved RV storage areas.
C. The Master Association shall control the operation and maintenance of the
recreational vehicle storage area, entry signs, common slopes and other
common features as identified in the Master Plan.
d. The provision of the Master CC&Rs shall be binding to the provisions of the
CC&Rs for the Village Associations and may not conflict. Slope areas within
individual villages shall be maintained by the Master Association if exposed
to major streets. The developer shall submit a master maintenance plan
showing all areas to be maintained by the Master Association to be approved
by the City Engineer prior to any final map approval.
Village HOA
a. No private development shall be permitted within open space Lots 117, 118,
184, and 186 inclusive.
b. The CC&Rs shall include provisions specifying that individual owners of
property may replace original fencing on their property, however, such
changes are required to comply with a uniform fencing and wall design for
the project. The replacement of any fences or walls within this project must
be consistent with one of the fencing or wall design types as shown in the
Master Plan.
C. Provisions for HOA maintenance of any Open Space Lot not maintained by
the Master Association.
d. All open space and landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and
thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The CC&RS shall not be modified without the express written approval of the
Planning Director.
Signs and Identification
15. Building identification and/or address shall be placed on all new and existing buildings so
as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
address shall contrast to their background color.
16. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
PC RESO NO. 393 1 -9-
. ’
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. All signage shall be designed in conformance with the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan.
Signage shall be located in conformance with the Landscape Concept Details
Exhibit unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director.
Environmental
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR 91-04 that are found by this resolution to be feasible.
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the attached Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan EIR 91-04 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Exhibit “X”) certified by the City Council on July 27,1993.
The Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the project Site with the
project as described in the Final EIR 91-04, except as modified by this resolution.
Paleontology:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
C. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
Prior to occupancy of individual units, the applicant shall construct the community
theme/noise attenuation walls shown on the Landscape Concept Plan Exhibit, dated
May 15,1996.
Prior to occupancy of individual units, the applicant shall submit a detailed noise
study addressing necessary interior noise mitigation measures for Villages J and K.
Prior to issuance of building permits the following mitigation shall be ensured: (1)
\@ PC RESO NO. 3931 -lO- \
r * I
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
the interior noise levels shall be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when openings to the
exterior of the residence are closed; (2) if openings are required to be closed to meet
the City standard, mechanical ventilation shall be provided; and (3) all useable
exterior space above the first floor shall be mitigated to the adopted City standard.
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor
(Melrose Drive), in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City
Attorney (see Noise Form #l on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise, Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
The Developer shah post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices
associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be
approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning
Department).
Prior to final map approval or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first,
the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Preliminary Site
Assessment (pp 39-40) dated December 1993 performed by GEOCON
Environmental Consultants which include the performance of additional laboratory
tests to confirm that the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) of DDT,
DDE, and Toxaphene does not exceed the values promulgated by Title 22 if soils will
be exported from the site. A report detailing the results of the remediation
program, if necessary, shall be submitted to the City.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall be required: (1) to consult with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impact of the project on
the Coastal California Gnatcatcher; and (2) obtain any permits required by the USFWS.
The issuance of a permit by the USPWS for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan mass
grading project would satisfy this requirement.
Housing
29. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not
being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the
Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and
deed restrict 27 second dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for the
useful life of the dwelling units in accordance with the requirements and process set forth
in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing
Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director not later than thirty (30) days
PC RJZSO NO. 3931 -ll- P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
- -
after final map submittal.
The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to participate in an offsite
combined inclusionary project in Village E to meet their 10% three bedroom
requirement (4 units), in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter
21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and City
Council Policies 57 and 58. Prior to the City Council approval, the developer shall
submit a signed Affordable Housing Agreement to the Housing and Redevelopment
Director. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future
owners and successors in interest.
The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and
the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule
for development.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the approved project for Village E, to include CT 95-06, PUD 95-04, SDP 95-
12 as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3919,3920,3921.
To service this development the project shall provide bus stop facilities at locations
subject to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District (NCTD), if such
facility is required by NCTD. Said facilities shall at a minimum include a bench,
free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench and pole shall be
designed in a manner so as not to detract from the basic architectural theme of the
project and said design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director and
North County Transit District.
Prior to final map, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the
Planning Director, an agreement which will establish the timing and phasing of
construction for the recreational Vehicle Storage facility. Prior to occupancy of the
first unit within Villages J and K, at minimum, 4,160 square feet of recreational
vehicle storage space shall be provided on Lot 104 of Village Q unless an on-site
temporary recreational vehicle storage facility has been approved by the Planning
Director.
The buildings shall comply with the latest edition of the Model Codes adopted by
the City of Carlsbad at the time plans are submitted for building permits.
General
35. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
PC RESO NO. 3931 -12- \1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36.
37.
38.
,-
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Resolution.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning and Building.
The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name policy
subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
Enpineeriw Conditions:
General
39. This project is approved for up to five final subdivision maps for the purposes of
recordation. All public facilities required to serve each unit and meet City standards
shall be guaranteed for construction prior to recording of a final map for that unit.
40. If the developer chooses to record a final subdivision map out of the phase shown on the
tentative map, the new phasing must be reviewed and approved or conditionally approved
by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions
upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a
final map.
41.
42.
43.
All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner’s association (if on
commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually
owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility
shall be placed in the CC&Rs.
The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, offrcers,
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the
Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within
the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or
street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
\cA PC RESO NO. 3931 -13- \U
- ’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
44. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in
accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement in the
project’s CC&&s:
“NO structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30-inches above the
street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight
distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section
8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.”
The above statement shall be placed on a non-mapping data sheet on the final map.
45. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti
program for wall treatments that is in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Fees/Agreements
46. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the
property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City
Council Resolution No. 91-39.
47. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
48. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
49. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give
written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the
subdivision plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping
District No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
Grading
50. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
51. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the
developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State
Water Resources Control Board.
52. Upon completion of any phased and/or project specific grading for Village J, the
applicant shall ensure that an “as-graded” geologic plan is submitted to the City Engineer.
The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all
geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contour map
PC RESO NO. 3931 -14- \4
- ’ a II ,-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
which represents both the pre and post site grading. This plan shall be signed by both the
soils engineer and the engineering geologist. The plan shall be prepared on a 24-inch x
36-inch mylar or similar drafting film and shall become a permanent record.
53. Prior to the affected final map approval, the owner of the property on behalf of
itself and all of its successors in interest shall execute and record a notice of
disclosure and a hold harmless agreement on Village J noticing any future owners of
the presence of a mitigated geologic hazard and indemnify the City of Carlsbad,
agents, officers, and employees from any action that may arise through any
subsequent geologic failure, ground water seepage, or land subsidence and
subsequent damage that may occur on or adjacent to Village J, due to its
construction, operation, or maintenance. A notice to this effect and a reference to
the recorded document shall be included on a non-mapping data sheet of the
respective final map.
54. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision
unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the
affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must
either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Dedications/Improvements
55. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or
installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be required by
the City Engineer.
56. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall
be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be
granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the
City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
57. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Melrose Drive, Poinsettia Lane, “C” Street of
Village J, and “B” Street, “D” Street, and “H” Street of Village K shall be waived on
the final map except for access points to Village S, or other designated access points
as approved by the City Engineer.
58. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the following:
a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
59. Drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for
maintenance purposes is not provided, shah be designed and incorporated into the
grading/improvement plans for the project. These end treatments shall be designed so as
to prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a
modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with
longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate,
as a method of preventing vegetation growth directly in front of the pipe outlet, to the
satisfaction of the Community Services Director and the City Engineer.
Master Plan Improvements
60.
61.
62.
63.
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the City Engineer may require
an engineering evaluation of the stability of the existing Bressi Dam. The evaluation
shall be conducted by an appropriate registered engineer. Any recommended
improvements to protect the existing dam, if required, shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to final map approval, an adjustment plat shall be recorded to align the
western subdivision boundary line with the proposed centerline of “I” Street.
Prior to submittal of a grading plan for the project, the developer shall submit and
receive approval from the City Engineer for a phased grading map clearly detailing
the limits and quantities of grading for this project.
Prior to final map approval, the following improvements, as required in the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan (MP) and Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone
18, shall be guaranteed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These
improvements, unless otherwise modified by the final decision making body, shall be
substantially completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to occupancy
PC BESO NO. 393 1 -16-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
of the first dwelling unit within the entire project.
a. Melrose Drive - Alga Road to Palomar Airport Road
l Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width to prime arterial
standards.
0 Construction of a median and two lanes in each direction and
intersection improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b. Poinsettia Lane - Melrose Drive to Zone 18 Western Boundary
l Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width to major arterial
standards.
l Construction of full major arterial standards from the intersection
with Melrose Drive west to the entrance to Village J and the school
site.
C. El Fuerte Street - Through Zone 18
l Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width.
l Construction of one lane in each direction from the southerly
boundary of the Master Plan to the entrance to Village T.
d. Sewer Facilities, including:
0 Sewer main in Melrose Drive
0 Sewer main in or adjacent to Poinsettia Lane
0 Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section A
0 Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section C
l Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section D
l Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section F
Buena/San Marcos Trunk (BSMT) 1, Section G
0 North La Costa Lift Station
e. Water Facilities, including:
0 A portion of the proposed potable 24-inch main in the future
alignment of Melrose Avenue.
0 The proposed pressure reducing station at the southeast corner of
Zone 18.
l The proposed potable 30-inch transmission line in the proposed
alignment of El Fuerte within Zone 18.
l A portion of the proposed reclaimed g-inch main in the proposed
alignment of Melrose Avenue.
l The proposed reclaimed 38-inch main in the proposed alignment of El
Fuerte within Zone 18.
PC FUZSO NO. 3931 -17- A/v
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
-
l The proposed potable 1Zinch main from Melrose to El Fuerte
through service Area E.
f. Drainage Facilities, including:
0 Proposed double 5’8 5’ box culvert under Melrose Drive.
l Retention basins, channel and flood control improvements necessary
to mitigate for erosion and protect downstream properties from
significant impacts.
64. An all-weather access road from a paved public right-of-way shall be constructed to
drainage and utility improvements in accordance with the following parameters and
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
O%- 6% grades may consist of a minimum of 6-inch decomposed
granite
6% - 14% grades shall consist of a minimum 4-inch asphalt concrete over
4-inch of decomposed granite
14% - 20% grades shall consist of a minimum 4-inch portland cement
concrete over 4-inch of decomposed granite
65. Prior to final map approval, public open space easements shall be placed on the
conforming tentative map on slopes adjacent to all public roadways to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and in conformance with the Ranch0 Carrillo
Villages J and K Landscape and Maintenance Responsibility exhibit.
Phases 1 and 2 Improvements
66. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City
standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate
security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the
following improvements:
a. All streets shall be public streets and shall be constructed in accordance with
City standards and the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan.
b. All street improvement plans shall include separate traffic signing and
striping plans.
C. The intersection of Palomar Airport Road and “I” Street shall be improved
to its ultimate configuration, and shall include the following:
l Fully actuated traffic signal with signal poles and mast arms installed
at their ultimate intersection locations
l Median improvements and installation of left-turn lanes on Palomar
PC RESO NO. 3931 -18- Tf)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
67.
68.
Airport Road
a Transition area on the south side of Palomar Airport Road to
accommodate a future eastbound through lane
0 Improvements and appropriate transition on “I” Street to provide for
additional turning lanes, as determined by the City Engineer.
The City will enter into an agreement with the applicant to obtain proportionate
share reimbursement for the above traffic signal from benefiting property owners to
the north and south of Palomar Airport Road.
Prior to final map approval for any portion of Village K, the developer shall provide
evidence that an easement has been obtained for secondary access to Village K.
Prior to occupancy of the 51st unit or prior to occupancy of any unit located 1200’
or greater from the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and “I” Street, secondary
access shall be provided to the project as shown on the tentative map, in accordance
with City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If this secondary
access is removed or eliminated, then an alternative secondary access shall be
provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Phase 3 Improvements
69. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City
standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate
security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the
following improvements:
a. All streets shall be public streets and shall be constructed in accordance with
City standards and the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan.
b. All street improvement plans shall include separate traffic signing and
striping plans.
C. Melrose Drive shall be improved along the project frontage to include the
following improvements:
0 No. 3 northbound through lane
l Northbound bicycle lane
l Curb, gutter, and sidewalk
l Street lighting
l Raised landscaped median
0 Landscape area between sidewalk and west right-of-way line
0 All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lane and
sidewalk
PC RESO NO. 3931 -19-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Phases 4 and 5 Improvements
70. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City
standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate
security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the
following improvements:
a. All streets shall be public streets and shall be constructed in accordance with
City standards and the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan.
b. All street improvement plans shall include separate traffic signing and
striping plans.
C. Poinsettia Lane shall be improved to full major arterial standards from the
Village J entrance at “C” Street westerly to the Zone 18 western boundary.
d. Melrose Drive shall be improved from the northern boundary of Village J
south along the project frontage to Poinsettia Lane to include the following
improvements:
0 No. 3 southbound through lane
a Southbound bicycle lane
0 Curb, gutter, and sidewalk
l Street lighting
l Raised landscaped median
l Landscape area between sidewalk and west right-of-way line
0 All utilities generally placed beneath the required travel lane and
sidewalk.
e. A fully actuated traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Melrose
Drive and Poinsettia Lane.
71. A copy of all of the above improvement conditions shall be placed on a non-mapping
data sheet on the final map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision
Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of
approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in
said agreement.
72. All improvements required by these conditions must be specifically shown on the
conforming tentative map exhibit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Fire Conditions:
73. An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be
provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the
PC FESO NO. 3931 -2o- P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may,
in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the
condition is corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be
equipped with a “Knox”, key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact
the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall obtain fire department
approval of a wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate methods
proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated with native vegetation growing
within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards presented in the fire
suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be complete,
and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in conformance
with an approved wildland fuel management plan.
The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following requirements:
A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and at least two
existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict street centerlines,
hydrant locations and street names.
Water Conditions:
79. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be
met.
80. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installation.
81. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
a. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Also obtain GPM. demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate
parties.
b. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a
meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and
PC BESO NO. 3931 -21-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
82.
83.
84.
85.
approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e. - GPM - EDU).
This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at
the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be
available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
The developer shall be required to adhere to all conditions of the water and sewer analysis
on file at Carlsbad Municipal Water District Engineering Department.
The developer shall install minimum g-inch DIA waterlines in all public streets.
Exact sizes shall be established via a Villages J and K analysis.
These villages must provide all offsite water, sewer and reclaimed systems to be
completely independent of other proposed developments.
Code Reminders:
Fees
86. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Final Map Notes
8 87. The following note shall be placed on the Final Map: “Prior to issuance of a building
permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the Developer shall pay a one-time
special development tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-39.”
88. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
a. This subdivision contains a remainder parcel. No building permit shall be issued
for the remainder parcel until it is further subdivided pursuant to the provisions of
Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
b. Geotechnical Caution:
The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest
has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action
that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land
subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this
subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance.
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following:
PC RESO NO. 3931 -22- ?9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
89.
90.
91.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are
located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or
interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest.
The developer shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of
City Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be requested by
the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the discretion of the City
Council. In approving an extension, the City Council may impose new conditions and
may revise existing conditions pursuant to Section 20.12.110(a)(2) of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of May, 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpen&
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HtiZMILuR
PC RESO NO. 3931 -23-
. ’
.
c - -
RJuKllo~~P¶sm Environxnd Impct Repoti
Mltlgation Monitoriq and%qmtbg Progmm
A. Agriculture
t 1.
Impact. Possible soil umtami!utiOn fFom agtiah&c fosmuiy UJed or stared on the
site.
;. Mitigctzion. L) Submittal Of s&s npOrr with miti@~n r&k&&~ if necusaq, t0 City Planning Dcparmunt ana fxtyHaitbDcpuPaa#. 2) lb¶iti@ontobmadcramdilionof tentative maps apprwed under the Mytcr Plan. 3) Repazt at completed rrmaiiion TV be
submitted to City Planning Dcprnmcnt and C~tmty Ehitb Dcprronau up~a CompietiOn.
Master Phz Impiementadm. A saih report fos tk M wnai by Cantincntai H~tnes and
the property being deditued for park putp0su Ias beat tuhd by tbt PhIming Depytmurt .
Any mitigation requind for his ~~lltamin&n B by this report will be rcmaiial prior to issuance of a grading pert& Imprtr may oeaoif addiWai pesticih c0ncmtratious and/or
hazardoluwytc~olcont;rinar~liorrad~dnniopawnt,inwhich~thc
referenced mitigathm would be appkabk S0ils tep0rts for odra: prwpab within the Master
Plan will be rquirsd with the sub* of tmmhe maps.
Chrckpoinrs. 1) Submittal of ach tadve mbdivisim map unde the Master Plan. 2)
Apprcwai of each tentative map under the Muss Pha. 3) Compki~n of construction of each
tentative map sthdiv&iOn. - . . ...,’ 3
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Eugkting Dcpyrmcnts.
Sanctions. 1) No mmive maps o be m without v amditions. 2) No final maps, building Or @iq permits M until rm&iatian rcp~rt suhittui.
Impact. PossiblecbntlIaktwcnrcufiasuguof~pha~ and coatinued
j. . Ll agticultunl use of 0th~ podns of the siec, iad* w dani& use, inigadon runoff, and odor.
Almigarion. EttzbtmtativemapmurtproviderIi(ltof~aadimpactcritetiaspecified
intheEIR,~rr~.~md~g~o~thcgdcvciopment~ compatible with cantim#d agriculti USC
Masrrr Pka hnpbmdoa.’ T%ae win be Iw) impa if-t(s) indite that consistent
with its practice since 1991, it inEndS to lbypQa htm use
. .
.
Ckkpoingy. 1) Submiti of each tU&Ve SUMViSial nrtp rnda the w Ph 9
Approvalof&h~t&emapundertbtMastcrPh. 3) Cmsumkaof~~~ve~ Subdivision. -
Responsiblr Pag. 1) Cii Phmiw d b-t -
Sanmbns. 1) No tcnu&e maps to be lpplwrd withatt m -0 3) hrrpcctioo of construction by gnding hspcctor% NO btddihg permits issd ud Ma Criteria Illt implemented.
.
B. Biology
Genemf Note. To ~lm the impiemamioa of all mitigatia~ foa pot&al impacts to biologhl resources, the applicant for each tmathe m;rp pqoscd unde tk Muoa PIan shall prior to
approval of each ttnutive map, as appcqhfe. show eidawe to dw City Planning Depvvnent that a qualified consulting biologist hU ken tedad to monioof dl LdcyIpt LIh@hOn, m.
compliance with mitigation fequircmcnrr, m imp&ma&m of dtiption, urd file ;I .
report on mitigation compliance with the Phaning Dhtor upon completion of mar
components of biologial mitigation tu@cmen&
,z :;- Impact. Implementa& of the -M;ran Ph win dktIy imprt wctkndt on-siitc ad, by
1' construction of a sewa line in the right OfwAy fhCMil0 WaytD r& m Off-Sk
Mfigafftion. The a@- fix the project shall dtkr restme aad dune riparian habitat U an
appropriate area ratio to impacts or hail pvridpar in a citydde mifigah prow through the City’s Habitat Maaagcment Ph. Mitigiott shall be aaompiiskd 00 the satishction of the
City and in accordance with tbe tq&anattsofssctioa 16OOaseq.oftheCalifomiaF~and
GameCodcandSeaioa401oftbeFakaK!aaW~~~~
Jfastw P&u fgktin. No mitigarion cequirui hr ofbite under sewa alignment
currently proposed by appiiam north of Cmib Way alignma& Such alignment has no
wetland imprtr
checkpoinfs. Apprrnnlofthe~tmPtivrm?porgradingpamitaff&~wetlands~-~ . off-site unda the m Plato
Responsible portl. ~ty~~~=iwDeoprmparq ah Depamnent of
Fish and Game, U.S. Army Coq~ of am
Sa~~ctions. NogradingmapmdatbeMastapkn.
.LG\
. ’
.
3
.’ 3
i
,
impact. IfA& project in lr01 m to my d mti~ns of San Dhp thommint and thread-lawi brodi;ra, dcvdopmept~dmifiimdvimpIctdlOsCspecicr
Miiigatiun. To pay miriw hpcrs, the m p&as hr San Diego thornmint tad thread-leaved brodii shall be implanentcd, modifM as q&led ‘m the EIR and after nvicrv
and acceptance by CDFG, as ColLditiolu of lpprpnl of mrnrinc mtpa under the Mastrr pita. To the maximum extent possible, &g&n shall beaaompiiski prior to construction nsulw in impacts. I
Master P&n Impiemeti~. Vies T md 0 brvt bsm ruxmfigud to avoid impaa tD
thornmint. Village G has beclr reconf@ured to minim& m OD Brodiacl.
~trckpoinrs. 1) Submiaal of tadve maps. 2’) Aped of tawive maps. 3) Prior to
construction causing impacts.
Responsible Patty. 1) City Planing ani Enginming Dcprmacnu. 2) City Planning md
Engineering Deparcmenu. 3) City Planning and En&&ng Departments, consulting biolw
Sanctiuns. 1) No w of tentative maps fa VilIage G without acceptable mitigation reviewed by Caiifomia Deptmatt of Fii and Gnaw.
fmpacf. Potential for future disturbance Of Upal Jeppc ‘Ucu.
Ligation. Dedication of an open space easemeat over natural apn space, biological mitigation
area, buffer areas, and tutu&ii areas to avoid dismham of the natural habitats as a
condition of tenutive maps.
c%rckpoints. 1) Approvai of tent&e nUpS.
Responsible hq. 1) Cii Planning’ and Enghdng wa
Sanctions. 1) Noqprovdoftadvemapswithout~of~tableopensprce easements and condition to dukate consetvation eBealeats~truru;rlopaIspace~
. -
hpact. Possible predation or disturbance of Ca&rnia m or otk oensidve wildlife
species by fittwe residau or domestic pm -.-
I@ ,, I ‘) (2
Mawr Plan Iwtpiemmnution. NoqprmldTeanrinMPprfor1&clsdV~=~~~ mitigation condition, if any, squired by clriifibnrh wt d Fi aud Gone o U.S. Depanment of Fuh and Wddlife.
Mitigatim. As dewmined by above r&u& agaxy.
C’kkpoinfs. 1) Approval of tentative atap&
Responsible Pm. 1) City &ming ti mg Dcputmentr.
Sanctions. 1) No Tentative Map apprcwd witboot won, if any, imposed by ref&ttced lead agency set forth a~ a condition.
Impact. Possible invasion of native p&t llpl by non-aative kdsqing species.
Mtigathm. As a componcrrt of the landsuping plans for afktui ViUagu, rrvegctah ph
. ‘1 c. for disturbed and mitigation areas shall be m by a w b&gist, and landscqing
1/ plans for tentative maps shall be reviewd by tk biologist-
Cfteckpoinfs. 1) Approvai of tentative snap& I) Compkion of hadsaphg and rcvegeution.
Responsibls Party. 1) City Planning and wg Depytmmtt, consulting biologist.
Sanctims. 1) No approval of tentative maps widuut Eltirfictoi lrndtcrping and rwegttation
pliUS.
hpacf. Possible d&dance of native babht ams during grading and constrhon.
9. i I\ftigatiOn. ‘Ihc toruulting biologist shall e survying and s&ug of native habitat areas
\i and monitor gr&~g and cowuwtion.
-
~rckpoinu. 1) ApprovriOftarodwmrpb. t) mbcauPltintbiolo(ia.
kponsibir PpLtl 1) City PlYming and Eqin&ng Dcpyrmara 2) cfm&ing biologist.
Sancrionr. ij-‘Notpprovrloftenptiveanp~proprtilptiohdtion. 2) No
issuance of building or Planning Depmment.
occuprncypnni~untii~~bi0l0gistsreponissubrnittedtothe
,.- .
Impotr. Potentially signifiant noise and zdvity imppctr ID Gmtatda during ming and consmction. .: ,* f;. 5 kftigazion. Due to cmflicting biologist’s opiniau qarding mit@tioa, ii114 mitigation plan, if any, shall be as approved by U.S. Fti and Wildtifc aad!or Womia Department of Fi and Game, as appropriate. . > .‘.’
cfJdrp0inf& 1) Approval of tenatk mrpt -
Responsible Patzy. 1) City Phnning and a-g Depyrmena
Sanctions. 1) Hait or ndirect gI&Ig or -on in ESU&& aIU, if my. .: .
Impact. Possibte dismrbance of wildlife qm+ by odar lighhng.
,r, ‘! Mtigahn. I/ Outdoor lighting l#1v native habitat axus should be sbieided and directed away from consuvation easement areas. .
C7~eckpoints. 1) &prowl of tentative maps. 2) Gmding and impmemnt plan checks. 3) Consvuction of improvements near CollscNItiQl Department bi consulting biologist.
usemax aras with report to Planning
.
Re~pondble PMP, 1) city Pbdng ti Eqbaing Deprn=u p ,wa bioe= .- ” _-. 5 .’ sane&J& lj N~~dtmntive~withmt~aaditioat. 21 Nom
ofm~ing~i~~pbarWithOUtpropa~~ 3) NOiSUmceof building or mq panirr witbaut propafy scq&hed mitiepion* -..4 _ __ _ ._ --- “- --*.-
.a: _~ ;-
hpacr. PotcnM for imw u) off-site sensitive ha&t atus fmm erosion and sedimentation
from the project. ._ . . . . -* . ‘_ - $0, ,,
, l d
Miligation. See hydrology and m qu&y mitigat@ r
Checkpoints. See hydrology ~JM- water Qullity titig&n~ ’ * *’ i :‘,,:. . . -.. .
Responsible Pam. Set hydrology J& water grnlity tirigltion. . . *. < * ..: _ : i
Smc~onse See hydmlow & - qaty &@a .:.“ ‘.. -I ” ’ - “; “” . . ..( _
. .
C. Culturn Resourca ’ ,:* ._i >I . , <. , . . I . . by
hpact. 12,740B. Possible vtndljism du to illCras& human pwenoc to uducol~gi~ de SW
\ ?‘, l .A: ..( .., n, ; . ...<, .,.. ..’ a. ’ .
Mtigan’on. The site &all be qxd with fAbric, a md vqeptian as a condition of the
tentative map including the sloe Work musz be suprviosd by a quaiii?d -logist re?aincd by the tentative map apphat. . . ..‘.I . .
_ i ..: ., ‘“.), . . . ,I ::..
Mbsrer P&n Implrmerobor. Rrir SioC is loaf& m s&e 10 be ddiatd to City of Cadbad
for parkland. The capping of this tite will be the rup&iIity d the city Of c&b&. . _ _ .
~eckpoinfs.
3)
1) St&& of &vdopmcat piaaa fix @k 6 2) & Of Such phS. Report by coruufting &uabgh submitted to City phpnky Deponent upon completion
of work and piior 00 mmmoyrmmtofdeYelopttmttofput:~ -‘: ‘. -I .*. - ,... .-
ResponsiMe hi. 1) m Pluming and B WtS. .*2) City Mg
Depament. 3) Coruutting uchacologist, City planing amf Eqhmhg Dcpuunen~.
33
s~nc&ns. 1) No rpprovrl of site development m tit&~ midprion iian. 2) * gnding pennits to be-issuai until miti~on report by conrulfing axchaeoiogiss is submined to City . P@nning Dcpytmart. : I. m..
Impact. Direct impacts of deveiqmau on arc&d& & &&lB. . . . .
Mitigation. AdatlncovtyprognmuspecifisdintbcEIRmrutknquirrduacofidition of the tentative map including the site. Wo# mm be mpmfid by a qualEd archaeologist
retained by the tenurive map appliaat and compel prkoo any consuwion affecting the site.
i,’ * L ‘1 Maw P&n Impkmenufioa. Mitigadoa of this rite wiII not be squired uuiess this uca is disturbed by onsite riparian miti@oa. : _ ‘..). . .
Cftrckpoints. 1) Appronl of applicrbk tentative 6. 2; Report by consuIting afchaeoiogist submitted to City Planning Deputnmt upon comphipa of work and prior to any *onding for
consuuction affbng the site.
Responsible Pmy. 1) No appmval of mahive map wi&a&ici&i& plan. 2) No building pcrmirs to be issued until mitigation report by cue&@ archaeologic is submittal to City . Planning Department. . ..__v . . _
c
Impact. Direct impacts of devdqmmt on arc- ite SDI-4687. . ,. ; ‘,. .*. ,:,;
Mtigation. Capping of the siitc as spaifial in dw EIB as a condition of any tentative map
i-2 affecting the site. Work must be supewkd by a quaMal an&aeoio& rwainai by the tentative * r / map applicant and completed p&x to any consuuctia~ afkting cbe site. .Y - ~ . . . _,, . ‘%
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of appfiable tmtarive rmp. 2) Appmval of &able tentative
map. 3) Reporr by consuiting a&neologist submirped ID city Planning Depxwnt upon complcrionof~~~priaooury~gar~~gtht~’ ’ . ..,
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of appliable tamrive I&.
.,‘.
2) Appmd of @able tentative
map. 3) Rcpan by consulting ardudogist atbmiasd 00 City Phnning Depament upon completion of work and prior to say grading or m affmingrhesit&’ . i - ‘,
Responsible m. 1) City P!a&ng and En- Depyrmenu. 2) Consulting * archaeologist,
Samions. 1) Submittal of ra&ve map ODI w without mihgxion plan. 2) No
appxwdoftamive~withous~~ 3) Nobuihbgpamiurok~d mitigation report by consulting ardaaeologis is s&n&i to Civ phming Dqarwws.
Impact. Emma&malt OfprOpOsddcvdopnaaOftk~Pkn~ bd~ ‘mfY
- ’ California’ setting of the Lea Canill0 hbosic rit. :rl
hiih’grrrion. Establishment and implemenprioa d a s@& d&gn district as squired under Land Use Compatibility in this mirigsioo aM!mhg d rcpohng program.
Chckpoints. See hnd Use Compibility~rctios.
Responsible Pony. See bd Uk Compadhiiity sada~.
Sanctions. Set Land Use Compatibility s&m.
D. P&ontologid Resources
Impact. Potential desuuctkm of signifiaat fmritr, @y in the Santiago aad Lusardi Formation, by grading and amsmxtion.
Mitigation. Monitoring of prading by a ph~~logist, with rwway and cuxatioa of any
significant fossils discovered, as specified in tk RR. Monitoring is to be @onned under the direction of a qualified paleontologist retained by the appliaat for ach tentative map.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tent&e map. 2) Report by consulting paleontologist upon completion of gnding.
Responsible Pq. 1) City Planning aad &qin&ng Depumrcnts. 2) Consulting paleontologist,
C
S’crions. 1) Approval of tent&e q aa Qlcnplclc wi&out mi6@n p&n. 2) No building
permits to be issued until micigatioa report by arnrulting e is submittal CO City
P!mling Depammt __ . . . . I .- -
E. Hydrology and Water QnalltJ
Inrpt. Major d&mge &iJiy deign will be requi& to amid w ldversc effects of erosion, sedimenfarion, scouziq, and flu&g fmcn the dcvciopcd *
h4itigotion. As a condition of,appmval crh enrative mop, tk applicant shall submit a hydrology analysis add&sing required fkx#d atEnuation, runoff flow r&ction/sikUion, and
f ’ 5 proper sizing of d&age f&iliria
Master Phn Implementation. A@iaat may submit one hyddogy analysis for the entire
Master Plan arta.
Chrck~ointr. 1) Approval of ach tcntrrin map.
.i
Responsible Party. 1) City &gin&q Dcpyrwnt 2) City E@n&ng Department,
Sanctions. 1) Tentative Map condilion of appmvaL - .
Impact. Major drainage ftifitin wilI have b be co& to avoid’potmfiai adverse effects of erosion, sedimentation, scouring, and fk&q from the &&pal site.
r I Y LL Master Pkzn Implemerrrtion. Appiii any shit one hydtology analysis for the entire
Maser Plan ara.
Mfigution. The fInal daision-- body s&U approve a F&g Plan addressing the sourccandrucoffundrforthe~ofrllnquired~fiEiliticspriortorrcording chcfintFiNiMaporthe~ of the ikst gmding or building permit, whichevair first.
C7trckpointa Recoding of first final map Q ismance of fht grading or buiIding permit. each centacive map.
Responsible Pmy. City Eagiedng Depanaa
Sanctions. No teemding of fiml mq ar - ofpndinl:urbuildirypcrmitwithout Financing Plan guaranwe for wasu&a~ ofrapireddninyefrdttia.
.
hpact. Potential erosive ar fl=ding dalEage to - iPIdb~RanchParkd~~ runofffromthdcvefopedsite~*~~d~W
bf&@z&n. ~hydroiogy~~f~tbcdrrinrLr~~dtbt~rbr[lk~mitoedwitb the appkabte tcnpriw map 01 pfiat b issuam
Awnue, and m
OfadlMzd~pQmitfa-
appmprbclragesywemshallbe~*ro~ ilsuamofcheti grading permit affaztng the aru and caWw!ed ~withIhc~OfthcaffixK$
Chkpoints. 1) Approval of appiiabk tartah maps t) haae of fh @g pamit
Responsible Pany. 1) Enginekng Deparunen~ 2) mg Dqutment.
Sunctions. 1) No approval oi teqntive map without pmpa w system showy 2) NO issuance of building permits until d&age system imp&maUed.
Impact. ~frtioaofthe~~~baMar1TSqerR~TiOparSprccAru 13
would disturb sa~~itivs biological m iachopeaspafxaru
c \
drainincicherElFucrrcStreaor~~
L MastwFlanImpiementatiorr. IhbmmdniahasbardoaralimpareulhrtwiUbagradalua
part of tie devciopcnem of Vii Q 9d R W possible to mrid s&rive habiut.
Checkpoints. 1) Submiuai of ta&w mq dirr Village Q and R Wudii the storm drain. 2)
Approval of Village Q and R cerdve mq. 3) caqWion of stmm drain amsrruaion.
Rupontiblr Pa&s. 1) City Et#&ng Pcprmpcar 2) Cii ~&neaiq ~eparunent. 33 City Engineering Deparunent.
Sunaimr. I) Submittal of tenutive mqnotcofnplcrcwi&outs&wingsDPrmdraiuinproper
location. 2) No approval ofw&v8mrp wihssmnndrainsbwainpmper location. 3) NO issuance of building permits for radve mg ud IDwm Knin pmpaiy Q)1wNocd.
fmpucr. Potential for increasti on-s&e cmsioa rad ‘&r-at su&aa&n &~KC3ITl when ground
surface is disturbed during grading rpd e
‘1 .U@ptritm. An Erosion and Sdm coard Plan m be m for each development
!y .‘j submircal. approved by the city w, ami in@- during ~I~SEI&WL
: . Chrckpoinu. Approval of any grading a iqMana%planin~MaWPlanaru.
Responsible Parties. City Engine&q e
Simaionr. No approval of any @ug pmmifs widmut Emha rad Sdinwdoa Control Ptan approved by rha City Engia~.
Impact. Patahl impa of urbm pdbtams hap ttu dmeiopd sim dksioa water quality in Biuiquitos w
t. L ,Wigation. Discharge of ruadT!km devdopai aras imu aacmahd M rad public education infonniuion dibtribu~ to propmy owms
Master Pson Impfemen&tiou. A deaad H@rologial Study must k appmv& prior ta issuance of a gnd~gp~ttfotthrOndinl~PPaMrmca~~Elarrar~wayr.
4 Cfieckpoints. 1) Approval of qpiiie caxaiw mqr. 2) C~~@abn of cunsauaion of drainage c&unnds.3~closeofucrowm~-.
Respotuildo +rrrtlrr. 1) Ciy Ezqimbg Dqammm 2) city ~3qmuam. 3) Dfvdopers -
SuRuions. 1) No appmvai of macive mqrdhac~dcrignofdddnagefsciliticS. 3 No issuance of buiidiag per&s unh rtmHdrrbnl, &Ii& pmpaiy m.
Impact. Potcnthl fat grast, oil, rad odm uaUkidmt polhmm thm pwai surhcer to reach
Buiquitos Lagoon in rumff.
Mitigation. Best managuame practices s&A k m to prmmt ur$aa pOnaams fmm entering
City w;uuways in compiiaace with N&ml pdllrera: Dii EIhi&on System mniciptl sumnwater penniuing fquiranax.
Checkpoints. Approval of say grading or impnrvcmrnt planiatheM;rrprPltnaru
Responsible Pan&s. City Engbeaiag Dcprmpra.
Sitnuionr. No apprwai of any grading pamits wi&uf Erosion aad Uimamioa Control Plyl
approved by the City Eagineer.
F. GeoIogy and Soils
Impau. Geologic co&ions potaxially mmi&ie QI devdopmax on he she without mnediation inciudc soils unsuitabie for lohbarhg or wirh &mse sademu~ pomhl, dd lrndriidc areas and
claystone beds.aadhigh-groud~iaiilrnirl~ih
M&iguriion. Remedii @ii will k Hurl to di firm ~~IOC& lb SUUUMM aadmsandto correaadvenesatlcarmradalluviai~w~LmuodwPrr; AaiiSayiPcarad engineering geologist shall k maid by aeh INbe mrprppllaaa,tsviswdeoiIcd~ino plans, prepam a dmM soil rad geoioljc inwdm w - rad m aunpiiance
with the .Masmr Plan gm&gic iuvcaigah ti fhe City G&g OS
Checkpoints. 1) SuhW of mch tam&e atq. 2) Approval of e3eh m uup aad iuuance of gmding permit 3) -aim ofumstmah
ResponsiblePahs. I) City-e 2) CityEn@u@~ 3)
consulting soiis alghf!m a& rarirrwrrimc-@sYm*
h&ons. 1) TaxWe prlp mbmhnl 001 qlm widmu drpild sag rad geologic invmigatioa 2) Notwutivamap~withart~ad~~oPdrpproOrirvamdiins. 3)
No issuance of b&Iii pmnits,wi&om criba ofprqm n&Qario~ fl
. ’
G. Air Qudity
r4 \ .L
\ !, \ \
Impucr. Potaiai for sm d&t impam 00 regioml * qmiity due u3 imuses ia pollutlnt
aaissioascausedby projserariltc.
MMgadorr Implanematioa of Mastm Raa mumrmiud~bikelrneraad~esuiaatik,and
requirement for applia for haxe m mapsm~wirhNonh~TruuitDisuiato
provide bus routes and sropr % approprirc.
~eckpoints. 1) Sub&al of tax&e amps. 2) Apptmt ofmutive mrpr.
RespondMe Pads. 1) Cky PIinning rpd Eqineaing Dqq~. s) oly n-t and
Engineering Depuanenrs.
Sonuims. 1) Sub&& oftcntuivr mqs me a~mpke wiha appruprirtc mitigaun Maui% 2)
No approval of tent&a maps without qpiicxioa cuadiiar.
E. Land Use
fmpuct Developmax of the Wster Ph would eauoreh oaxh ‘ariy CAiirah’ sating of Ctilo
Ranch Park. inchding the diahtioa of the amhan emy Q IM mch axnpugd.
Mdigation. A Special Park Design Dii &ail k etabltbed for &vdopm~ nrmwding the pti,
inciuding special commJs oa sabachs, Wsa@g, UMI Irchirr#pnl dmih rad aa enay though the parkrhroughVillageS. lheduigndMasu&rflswiUki&udaliadke~Plaaand
subsquent tentative maps wiil be evaluibd f# amformrrrc by the Phauiag Coaunksioa.
Checkpohts~ 1) Approvri oftho Masm Plaw 2) Appmddtmmiw ampsdue iaciude panof the dcsiga disuia.
Ruponriblr- 1) Cityplrnninc~ 3 W-CDcptimrea
sonuions. 1) NoqlpmvaioftheMawRaawirhorr~ drprrtdaigndisuiaaui devciopmcnrstaada& 2) Norpponloftaaivrmplaxmh@pmafdredcripdispia
without sating fonh dirprict drvaopmaa sra&cds.
&dude I3
.u&@llhn. Agreemuxwidlche%ilooIdistriuotldcdp~~~~~~
enhrcd by the Planning Coauniss~ Wb rcuh ddt dsnbpma whbia the da@ dhia,
itisnotwithinthepowaoftheLerd~oprrPPnrht~lL~1CImid~or~idsd.
\ i 'L- checkptktts. No Lead Agency &ckpoiarr wirhorr rqsepvn rirb Ik s&ml district.
Responsible Pm&s. Responsibility bw miai@o is rthin tbr at&n-&y of amber jutisdiction urd
not the City of Cuisbad.
Siuwimu. None avliiablr to the City of C&SW pda & cirarmaraca.
Impoet. Dedication of the open spm link at the sauhwat oeeyt of elu propay, where tha link crossufromonetoneto~djrcm~ip,irpaawrsd~athc~Mlttct~
Mtiqorion. Assure continuance of the apar sprc~ Iii 1 m of ti m Pk.
Mimer &n fmpkwuatiorr. Cacisbd’s Open Spue AfMory appmvd he open space link proposed by the Master Plan at their Fdmuty 1993 m&q. .
C7trc&points. 1) Appmvai of Maau Ph. 2) Apprwrl of - q iaciudiig village T.
Respansibie Ponies. Phairq Dqmna
sonaiont. No approval of h(ma Plan withoa opm qme li
fmpo~. Applicants for the hktrr Ran root obtain a lath from dte Sa hkos Unifid School
i,
District accepting the site proposd by appiiam as pas&la school sire au in compliaacr with tie Zone 18 Locai Facilitia Mparocraar Pk
‘+ \/ ’ rwirigorion. Agreaneu with the San Mproor Unifid scbooi Diaricx I part of Master Plan approval.
SMaiont. NolppiwrlofMrscaRtp~~riththl~diseriQ~compiiawith
the Zone 18 Lo4 Facilitia w Pk. .
-
L Visual Aesthetics/Grading
fmpncr. Grading propod by h m Plrp mqmirm fld@ j&m grading voium~ to be
q \ qpmvai by the Plaaahg Dii ad City Euginm sotdiq m rhr HiDsUe Development Otdbancc. w a
Miiigadon. Approval of fiadii tbr dw pm gmfiq vdm~ prior r~ approval of the Master Ph.
Checkpoints. Approval of h&m Plaa. -.
Responsibie Pmtiei. Plan&q Direaor md City Enghr.
sznaions. No approval of the Masta Plm without be fa#n!d fhdii.
Impua. Propotcd grading fdbr Fhc Mura Ph would acd Hill& Devdopmcnt Ordinance
allowances for slope height at4 utcmacbmmt into 40 pwcm &pm withmt spaified endings by the
daision making body.
/r )* 2- Mtigation. Approval of flmkgs f& .tht propoW grU#g OOPePmPt wirb 1ppfov4 of the Master
Plan.
Chdpoitus. Approml of the Masm Ran.
Rtspomible Pa&. Ddioo making Body.
Sancriont. No appmai ofti Maser PM without ttu rap&d finding.
fmpau. potcatirl irnprar of- Plan dm&pamR On aa visdy sahive Carriilo Ranch Park
site, including VWgm S, 0, rpd Q.
Mh@ciun Applido tmaiw mqr m indict aa scq@le daaild Idsape plan 00 cdu~8 ‘7, /a- , potential imptat. Implgba Qed pair Design Didu m i8EiRL?pdUUScaiop.
\
Chrcfpoinfs. 1) SubmicUloflppliuhfe tentative mrpr. 2) Appmvd dqpkable temlbe mtpr. *
Rapons@ie Pm. 1) C&y Pbaiq Deparmm~ t)qw=-spcpQIIIzLfzlt*
sknuions. 1, Tau%iw nqrlPbmimlaoccomplamwidunR~ed~plm. 2) No apJriMloftentatiwtluPrirbopqpmQrirts -dl=-PPi=- 4%
M Adaia/Gdng 1S
fmpocr Potentially s@n,iffc;m impact of reauiod whidr storage in Opea SPm Afa 13 00 vim
from existing residemu,
-* L\ Wigation. Deuilsdl~p~1~~111Of~mqlor~QtpbRoocffcaivdy
1 screen views of recmrioaal vdGde smtag%
Ckckpoincs. t) Stlmilpl &amciveq idud@ reerepioc@ v&i& mrage. 2) Appfovrl of
tentative map including rea&omi v&i& w
Responde Parties. 1) City Phming Dcplrmrnr 2) City Phuning Dqt==.
Suncrions. 1) Submittal of tenative plop ax aomplas within approprirr, lmdruping plm. 2) No apptoval of tentative map without appropw lrpdsqrhg ph
?
fmpcrcf. Potential signifianc visual impact of mi8e Qcrias ovm six fa in height.
Mtigabt. DetaiM lmdsaping pian for tent%iw~topmvide~cowr,tunrrc,and
, s
variation of vegetation to M wails.
I Chrckpointt. 1) S~bmicui of atty tmacive mq &wing X&O badas mm six feet in height. 2)
Approval of any tenutiw mapsbowingnoisebaIiusovasixfe%ia~
. Rerpontiblr Pmtie. 1) City plrpainl ad B Dqmmam. 2) clfyPl%mingand
Engineering Departmata.
Sunrzionr. 1) Sti of appiiile macive mrp aa aompia8 with8 qpmpriuc IticJping
plan. 2) No apprwai of rppliie tmzive v ritboor appmprh landtaping pian.
.A\’ :\ I
J. Circulation
‘UBfgtaion. The cii will aoaiapsfotumwmfkmd%amiw~ withLFMPscandad
rabtoideatifyaadimpllmna~DlerstymmuthrsudmL
ckkpoim. ConrtrPcrioaof-rmprovsmrar.
RrrponsatrPaMa. CltyEr&uim~
h
. .
.
soncabltt. miuuaace ofbaildhgpambifGtw&M~~hrtWllcI~of
stnriceareaarac .
fmpuefs. Sprdnlof~eAnr~sctioaon~AirpatIIordirtOOfccrdosa~~ standards ailow. w
MMgdon, Tamtive maps &ail amply with City cod ai@ua ad ‘bctetsecdon spacing scadards
tothe~fictionof~atyEllfiaca. . 5 .L.
Masw~ImpfenJrJct8dor. nleloc%ionsiwllootbr~h6%erPtmhunotbeulcevisd
md!mbmaapptovedbydmCityEa@eer. . I.
chrdtpoinrr. Appvaioftetmivemaps. -
Reponsrblr Pa&es. City Engineering Depmaas
Sbtaionr. Notgpmvriof~emrOIthrtQaoraompllr~~mddi~~md
intersection spacing to tiw misfhioa of drr C3y Eqiaw.
fmpu. Aspro~devdoplaultofth8~~uoddKqaire~signalsoFai- Airpon RoadJacms rod to Village E lad it Melmu Avmdm to viuages H, 0, md L.
/.:
2 3 M&jgucfon. Conditioo tmmive acapsmconnroatbraecea%ysignais%ldimpmvenlti.ot daaminethcaeedforsi~tuenfficsludi~filrriva~.
Cfuc&poinu. 1) &had of appiiabla tamive mqs 2) lrppwrl of appiiable tenarive maps.
Responsibly Pada. 1) City Eaghe@ hpama~. 2) Csty agimaing Deparmm
Sanuimw. 1) Noqpmvd0ftal5tiW~wicba%~mrdick~~
c?&e&p~q Appmnlaf~q&. .> ‘J -.:.. . .’ p*
bponsib&Porhr, 1)Chyl’hmiagand~~~ t) CJW’-W~ Engineering Deparamm.
-_. slncfhs. 1) Noqprovdoftwl%iva alapswidu-md : .i , . I L
K Noise ’ . . . L./. . :
.,
.
Impue. c~~rdjrcanoomrjorrorb~dr~~mrappidapcriencc~tnfRc
noisainexcessoftbCiysnadads0f6OdBACML. I ,#. -,
Lwtigadon. Talt%ivemapa~sllow~ :%,l>,.+‘. ‘-’ -L . d . .,.. I &&&imr~iutbcEIRormcity
\t ’ .\ sulmfds to artalummise. IfgndiagrbowaiadrA6sr%mdDIbnJoOmanin-d excessive uaactaxutd noise is mdifid by ta&w& Iha mdi!Mbmsballbeteviewadby~
CityEngineeadrmwacudals0adyWlkplbrmdd~ aIiLig%ioa imrpid
ifindicard. featnivamrpslpplicrnrtrhrllhmdrapcioaal~a~~ninhci~al *
buri~ovcrskfcaoomIcu~rixf~DD~~imrm~QYPOIiCY. .“,..:’ - -.
chekpohtf. 1) Appmvai of mtative mu 2) a, &. . :’ 2 &LLmm.
RItponsiblrP-. 1) cr*wrpd~‘:n;..:..--‘.-‘.. .j ‘,-’ i 2) cl&king
DepWUllalL , . _;. I* ,. ‘i ;
Sondoms. 1) Noappmvalrrid#utproperbrrriarramibk 2) No issuace of SubS~
permits. . ,,.., ,: .; ? -. . . . _ .” ~.. . .’ ‘.
; ..r ;‘. i, F_ ‘: ;
I, ,.L -
Impact. Saond floss of B ruidasial oaio m to acd8b W roadways COUM
eXpti~imnlPcaoiwlrwlrin~Ofth4SWClUEL~ _,( . . ‘1.. ~~_- ,-. .. . ‘.
\ + Mugoziu& Rppovdtemetvr~sbai~beriprrml%ve~sx~~lcLideac%BLxIfo
CireulpionEIIplrpt~~wouLd~ipriorpoirbrrb~~dBAcNELOr~Crrfot
feamfior~~ Amdaismdi%to~ Mam@ww-w Engineer. ..f; . . -” c7l~ckpoin8.1) AppmvdofIwrrkr~ 2) &pa&d.- .
RupoysibhPmda 1) CityRplninl4ad~D+W= 3-m ’
sbu#iom* 1) Noqlptwdwidumt~buTias~r-. 2) Noisa88ce
pamiu. . . \ Of -lyJ
l
1 .
L. PubIicFzaciMksandW .I - .’
Auugaiiorr. Priortorhe~ofallyQIIpq,lpdaIbrM%ru~ sllfmaxp~~
be dedicami within Zone 18. . -
c7kkpo~.Record%ionof~~maQ%uiercbrMrpr~’ 3 .
Sonaionr. Norrco~aofflnrlraq~AdlmtrdOPdCiCIIPUtfiPd~~~P~D~.
4.
Impact. Thr~~~~thtrcrkrdSbjgtOtYItbtdCCdbdODdK~
M~cosUtidScbooldirPia(SMUSD) laddrr:aflnwingphnbeappwdbytheS&tUSDprior torecordacionofmyfbuimaparissuaaa d~gadiaga~pcrmitizo8elt.
s Muption8 comprirocrwitht!%zolutt~
CkkpoiM. 1) R-ofthe~fiarl6Quaderd%kpLa 2) lsuaac8ofq
gMllg0dUiidhlgqamitindl8~~Irr
__
*-
Responriblr Pad&. City Plaaning Apd Engbdq Dqmmma
Sonabns. NoFdmprwrddwihuUM?&~~.
-_.
Imprrct. ~Irarrt#aalaldexcad Msutcrmmrrrtlbr7046.
trea%m~if~~occuniadle
M. SOW Waste Disposal
Import, Dcpcadinloa~~pknninl~~9,~u~~Il-u;rr,~LapaadrlLior
solidwasmgaurud[romdmklrttaPlamm~Bedd@aalcqmQ~ r
MUgodim AppiiaarsbrtmtaiMrmpIpropadiWMrPtPLorrrdr(fdcmoastrPrthr
meaas of feasible solid waste disposal am milabk
c7teckpoinrx. 1) Appfduftmmivemrpr~tbeularr~-
Rapode Pmia. 1) City P!=W d MDe$---
Sanctions. 1) No approval of taxarive mtpr widroa @ - of misting dkposri apaciq.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11 /I
to wit:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3932
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A 186 LOT PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH 181 SINGLE FAMILY
UNITS AND 27 INCORPORATED SECOND DWELLING
UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH
OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, NORTH OF FUTURE
POINSETTIA LANE, ON EITHER SIDE OF FUTURE
MELROSE DRIVE.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J
ANDK
CASE NO: PUD 95-05
WHEREAS, UDC HOMES has filed a verified application for certain property
12
13
14
15
Portion of Section 24, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian and a portion of Sections 18 and 19,
Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California.
16
17
16
19
20
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit
Development approved as shown on Exhibits “A”-“CC”, dated May 15, 1996, on file in the
Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference (PUD 9505) as provided by
Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
21
22
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of May, 1996,
23
24
25
26
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Planned Unit Development.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Planned Unit Development, PUD 95-05,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45 of Title 21, the General Plan, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, and
all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the single
family low medium density residential project implements the designated General
Plan and Master Plan land use and incorporates all required development standards
and design criteria specified by the Planned Development Ordinance.
2. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide
a service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that the single family development will
contribute to the balance of housing types in the City.
3. That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity, in that the project is conditioned to comply with the Zone 18 Local
Facilities Management Plan ensuring that the necessary public facilities and
infrastructure will be provided concurrent with demand and that grading will be in
accordance with the provisions of the Grading Ordinance and the recommendations
of the geotechnical analysis.
4. That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45090, the design criteria set forth in Section
21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the
Design Guidelines Manual, in that the project provides the necessary public street
widths, conveniently located private recreation areas, adequate resident and guest
parking, setbacks, and landscaping.
5. That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on
the site, in that the project grading is consistent with the approved Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan Hillside Development Permit, HDP 91-17, and units will provide
variation in architecture and roof colors as well as landscaping and uniform fencing
on HOA maintained slopes to screen structures from surrounding roadways.
PC RESO NO. 3932 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site
is compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the project is consistent with the
development approved for Villages J and K by the approved Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Plan. Villages J and K abut future Melrose Drive and are surrounded by other
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan villages designated for single and multi-family
development, as well as the designated school site.
7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated
with the project and does not dominate the project, in that its road design will
provide automobile and pedestrian access to each of the units via a public street
system as well as satisfy guest parking requirements in proximity to the individual
units.
8. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent development as described in CEQA Guidelines
15168(c)(2) and (e), and 15183;
b. the project is consistent with the General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01) and
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan EIR (EIR 91-04).
C. there was an EIR certified in connection with the prior 1994 General Plan
and Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior EIRs;
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist;
9.
10.
11.
12.
The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 and EIR 91-04 which are appropriate to
this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
MEIR 93-01 found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and
adverse; therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding
considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those
effects, no additional environmental document is required.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April, 1994, in that as conditioned the applicant
shall record a notice concerning aircraft noise.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 90-384.
-
PC RESO NO. 3932 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
1. Approval of PUD 95-05 is granted subject to the approval of CT 93-01 and SDP 95-l 3.
PUD 95-05 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 393 1 for the Tentative Tract Map, CT 93-01.
2. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the approved CT 93-01 and SDP 95-13, as contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 3931 and 3933.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of May, 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy,
Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chair$erson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
c
PC RESO NO. 3932 -4-
EXHIBIT 4
Tbe City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 1 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 15, 1996
Application complete date: November 4, 1995
Project Planner: Brian Hunter
Project Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECT’: CT 93-Ol/PUD 95OS/SDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J and
s - Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit
and Site Development Plan to subdivide a 75.5 acre parcel into 186 lots with
181 single family dwellings and 27 affordable units as second dwelling units
incorporated into the single family dwellings on property generally located
south of Palomar Airport Road, on either side of future Melrose Drive, and
north of future Poinsettia Lane, in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities
Management Zone 18.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3931 and
3932 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CI’ 93-01, PUD 95-05 and Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3933 APPROVING SDP 95-13 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of multiple permits to subdivide and develop the 75.5
acre site into 186 lots containing 181 single family dwellings and 27 affordable units as
second dwelling units incorporated into the single family dwellings, 4 open space lots, and
1 future lot. Village E (CT 95-06), which has been previously recommended for approval,
contains the four three-bedroom units which will satisfy the three-bedroom requirement for
Villages J and K. As designed and conditioned, the project is in compliance with the
General Plan, Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, Ranch0 Carrillo Final Environmental Impact
Report, Ranch0 Carrillo Hillside Development Permit (HDP 91-17), the Subdivision
Ordinance, and the Planned Development Ordinance.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed subdivision, which is located in the P-C Zone and within the boundaries of
the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan, is designated by the General Plan for Residential Low
Medium (O-4 dwelling units/acre) density.
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan was approved by City Council on July 27, 1993. The
purpose of the Master Plan is to provide for the orderly development of the Ranch0 Carrillo
site, while preserving the environmental resources of the area. Grading for the entire
Master Plan area was approved under Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17. For
CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/SDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
. MAY 15, 1996
Planning purposes, the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan is divided into Villages A-T. The
Master Plan identifies the allowable type and intensity of land uses in each village and
provides general development and design standards, requirements, and the method by which
the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan will be implemented.
The 75.5 acre parcel is identified by the Master Plan as Villages J and K. The site is
bifurcated by Melrose Drive and consists of gently to moderately sloping hillside terrain
which rises from approximately 200 feet to 410 feet in elevation. The site has been
previously cleared for agricultural use and currently contains non-native tall grasses and
coastal chaparral in the undisturbed areas. No direct impacts to protected biological
resources were identified within the Village boundaries.
As shown on Exhibits “A”-“CC”, Village K consists of 116 residential and 2 open space lots.
The lots range in size from 6,000 to 23,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,200
square feet. Village J plans 65 single family residential lots and 2 open space lots and is
located west of future Melrose Drive and north of future Poinsettia Lane. This village is
being developed as a standard R-l subdivision with minimum 7,500 square foot lots
consistent with the approved Master Plan.
Per the approved Master Plan, Tentative Maps and Planned Development Permits may be
processed through Planning Commission and City Council without floor plans and
elevations. At the time of Tentative Map approval the Planning Commission and City
Council shall adopt design guidelines for the project. Before obtaining a building permit
the applicant shall submit floor plans and architecture for staff review to ensure compliance
with these guidelines. After reviewing these plans and determining that they are in
conformance with the design guidelines that were approved as part of the Tentative Map,
staff shall present the floor plans and architecture to the Planning Commission per Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.45.160 for a Planned Development Permit Minor Amendment.
Pursuant to the City’s adopted Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15% of the base dwelling
units must be provided for lower income households. Villages J and K, when combined with
Village E (104 units), have an inclusionary requirement of 46.8 units (312 x .15). The three
bedroom requirement of 5 units will be provided in Village E. Villages J and K are
responsible for 4 of those 5 units. The production of these units will be governed by an
affordable housing agreement, which will be in addition to the Site Development Plan which
approves the affordable housing development within Villages J and K.
The project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, and programs and zoning
regulations:
A. General Plan
B. Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP-139E)
C. Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance)
CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/aDr 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
MAY 15, 1996
PAGE 3
D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance)
E. Growth Management Ordinance
F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC)).
Iv. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
The Villages J and K project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the
General Plan. Particularly relevant to the proposed single family project abutting a prime
circulation arterial roadway are the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, and Housing Elements
of the General Plan.
Element Use Ciassification, Goal, Proposed Land Use And/or Compliance
Objective or Program Improvements
Land Use RLM (O-4 Dwelling Units/Acre) Project is single family residential at Yes
a density of 3.0 (Village K) and 3.7
(Village J) dwelling units/acre.
Growth Control Point (3.2
Dwelling Units/Acre)
Increases above the densities The General Plan Growth Control Yes
allowed by the General Plan may Point is exceeded due to the
be permitted by Site provision of affordable housing.
Development Plan for the Please refer to the Site
provision of affordable housing Development Plan discussion for
elaboration.
Encourage the provision of low Project includes 27 affordable studio Yes
income dwelling units to meet the and one bedroom units on site and 4
objectives of the Housing three bedroom units in the adjacent
Element. Village E.
Ensure that all hillside The proposed grading design is Yes
development is designed to consistent with the approved Hillside
preserve the visual quality of the Development Permit HDP 91-17 for
pre-existing topography. the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan.
&I 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/sDr 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
MAY 15, 1996
Element
Housing
Use Classification, Goal, Proposed Land Use And/or Compliance Objective or Program Improvements
Permit the approval of The project is conditioned to Yes discretionary actions and the construct/install all public facilities
development of land only after necessary to serve the subdivision.
adequate provision has been Citywide and quadrant wide public
made for public facilities and facilities are adequate to satisfy the
services in accordance with the additional demand; therefore the
Growth Management public project is consistent with the Zone
facility standards. 18 LFMP.
Ensure that master planned Project includes 27 affordable studio Yes
communities and all qualified and one bedroom second dwelling
subdivisions provide a range of units on site and 4 three bedroom
housing for all economic income affordable units in the adjacent
ranges. A minimum of 15% of all Village E.
units approved in master plan
communities shall be’affordable
to lower income households.
Srculation Require new development to Project is conditioned to complete Yes
construct all roadways necessary all necessary street improvements
to development prior to or prior to occupancy of any unit in
concurrent with need. each phase.
Noise 60 dBA CNEL is the exterior Project provides mitigation to Yes
noise level and 45 dBA CNEL is reduce noise levels to 60 dBA within
the interior noise level to which the usable yard area of lots abutting
all residential units should be Melrose Drive, and the project is
mitigated. conditioned to require compliance
with the 45 dBA interior noise
standard.
B. Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan
As described below, Villages J and K comply with the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan General
Community Development Standards and Villages J and K requirements including: a)
product type and density, b) approved Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17, c) design
criteria, and d) Master Plan infrastructure requirements.
a) The Master Plan designates Villages J and K for single family development
with a density range of O-4 dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists
of 181 single family units with 27 incorporated second dwelling units produce
a density range of 3.0 (Village K) to 3.7 (Village J) dwelling units/acre which
is consistent with the Master Plan. Village J is to be developed as a standard
R-l single family subdivision, while Village K was recognized by the Master
Plan to be developed as a Planned Unit Development due to the fact that
there were lots less than 7500 square feet in area that would be proposed. As
noted previously the Master Plan allows delayed architectural review via the
adoption of design guidelines at the tentative map stage. The following is a 6 5
4
CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-OS/SDf 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
MAY 15, 1996
PAGE 5
synopsis of the design guidelines for Villages J and K.
ISSUE
Village J Design Guidelines Synopsis
I COMMENT
Unit Mix A minimum of 3 floor plans with a minimum of 6 front
building elevations. 8% one story minimum.
Plotting of Units No floor plan shall be plotted more than 60% of total
units on a street; no two units with same facades closer
than 100’ on the same side of the street; and units may
not utilize the entire building envelope. 40% lot coverage.
Setbacks Melrose Drive - 50’
Poinsettia Lane - 40’
Front - 20’
Side - Standard R-l 7500
Architecture Architectural style per Master Plan; three chimney
maximum, three color schemes minimum, varied
streetscape via varied materials
Garages Minimum 20X20 interior dimension with doors offset. 3
car garages shall have a mix of 1 two car door and 1 one
car door and 3 one car doors with the two car door having
a minimum 12” offset from the one car door.
As noted previously, Village J is to be developed as a standard R-l single
family neighborhood. Even though the graphics within the Master Plan clearly
identified a panhandle lot (Lot #135) at the northwest corner of Melrose
Drive and Poinsettia Lane, the special design criteria for this village did not
acknowledge this potential. The City Council may approve panhandle lots if
the following circumstances are found to exist:
(1) The property cannot be served adequately with a public street without
tP
Accessory structures I Permitted similar to R-l zone
Walls and Fences I Per Village J landscape exhibit
Signage I Village identification and directional information
Second Dwelling Units 9 lot minimum, approved as part of the delayed
architectural review and processed consistent with
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.10.015.
Minor Modifications Allows a change to five or less of these provisions per
Planning Director approval if determined to be in
substantial conformance with the approved project.
CT 93-Ol/E’UD 95-05/sDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
MAY 15, 1996
panhandle lots due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual
topography, surrounding land development, or lot configuration; and
(2) Subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the
ability to provide full public street access to other properties within the same
block of the subject property.
Village J is located between a steep slope with native vegetation on the north
and Poinsettia Lane on the south. In order to minimize grading and impact
to the native vegetation, no further movement to the north is in order.
However during the process of school site (Village S) acceptance between the
developer and the school district, Poinsettia Lane’s intersection with Melrose
Drive was moved to the north to allow for a less linear school site. This
increase of developable land on the south side of Poinsettia Lane resulted in
a corresponding reduction of usable frontage along B street within Village J.
Although the lot has over 24,000 square feet of area, its frontage was reduced to 20’ at the end of the cul-de-sac. All requirements for development
standards for panhandle lots (lot area, width, yards, parking, drainage,
placement of structures) are met with this proposal to properly develop
this property. A condition will be placed on the lot that requires the property
owner to hold harmless the city or any other public service agency from
liability for any damage to the driveway when being used to perform a public
service as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.10.080(d)(9).
Village K Design Guidelines Synopsis
ISSUE COMMENT
Unit Mix A minimum of 3 floor plans with a minimum of 6 front
building elevations. 8% one story minimum.
Plotting of Units No floor plan shall be plotted more than 60% of total
units on a street; no two units with same facades plotted
closer than 100 feet on the same side of the street; units
may not utilize the entire building envelope. Maximum 101
coverage 40% - 2 story, 50% - 1 story.
Setbacks Melrose Drive - 50’
Front - Per the Planned Development Ordinance Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.45090(b)(2)(A)
Rear - 15’ minimum
Side - 5’ minimum, 10’ minimum for corner lots. All units
shall comply with the building separation requirement of
the Planned Development Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 21.45.090(5).
CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/SDr 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
MAY 15, 1996
ISSUE
Architecture
Garages
Accessory structures
Walls and fences
Signage Village identification and directional information.
Second Dwelling Units
Minor modifications
COMMENT
Architectural style per Master Plan; compliance with small
lot guidelines; three chimney maximum; three color
scheme minimum; varied streetscape via varied materials.
Minimum interior dimension of 2O’x20’. 15% minimum
two car (balance may be three car). 3 car garages shall be
mix of 3 one car doors and 1 two car door and 1 one car
door. 12” offset between two car door and one car door.
Permitted similar to R-l zone unless lot coverage or fire
suppression area prohibits/restricts location.
Per Village K Landscape Exhibit.
18 unit minimum. May be approved as part of the
delayed architectural review process as long as consistent
with Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Allows a change to five or less of these provisions per
Planning Director approval if determined to be in
substantial conformance with the approved project.
b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Hillside Development Permit
(HDP 91-17) approved concurrent with the Master Plan in that the
subdivision grading design is consistent with the approved mass grading
design.
Cl Due to its location adjacent to Melrose Drive, a 50’ landscape setback is
required to screen the units from the roadway and to buffer residential units
from traffic noise. The proposed landscaping within this setback area is
consistent with the Master Plan landscape guidelines. Streetscape
landscaping, community theme walls and fences, village fences, as well as
Village entry monumentation into the project, are provided in accordance with
the provisions of the Master Plan.
Exterior noise levels for units along Melrose Drive will exceed the City’s standard of 60 dBA CNEL due to traffic noise without mitigation. The 6’
high community theme wall proposed along Melrose Drive will mitigate
exterior noise to acceptable levels.
d) The project is conditioned to require that all public facilities necessary to
serve the project are provided prior to, or concurrent with, development in
accordance with the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. Two major
items with regard to circulation are associated with this and future Ranch0
VP
CT 93-Ol/PUD 9505/sDr 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
MAY 15, 1996
Carrillo projects. Major roadway infrastructure must be constructed to gain
site access to the Master Plan area. This will include construction of Melrose
Drive to a minimum number of lanes, rather than the ultimate lane
configuration, for this arterial roadway. An assessment district is currently in
the formation process between the Ranch0 Carrillo property owners to
construct this improvement. Each tentative map for Ranch0 Carrillo will be
conditioned to construct its Melrose Drive frontage improvements, which will
add the remaining lanes so that this major roadway is constructed to full-
width, in accordance with City Standards. If the assessment district is not
formed, then each Carrillo Ranch tentative map will be conditioned to
construct Melrose Drive frontage improvements, the roadway system needed
to access the given site, and Melrose Drive as required by the Master Plan.
As circulation element improvements have yet to be constructed for the entire
Master Plan area, a condition of this project will specify that the construction
of Melrose Drive, Poinsettia Lane, and El Fuerte Street be guaranteed prior
to approval of the final map, and substantially completed prior to occupancy
of the first unit. Conditions will be imposed on the project to construct the third northbound lane on Melrose Drive along the Village K frontage, the
third southbound lane on Melrose Drive along the Village J frontage, and full
improvements for Poinsettia Lane from the entrance to Village J westerly to
the western subdivision boundary.
The circulation systems for both Villages J and K have been laid out in
accordance with the requirements of the previously approved Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan. The road systems consist of local through streets and local cul-
de-sac streets, all of which are public. These streets have been designed to
City Standards and will consist of curb, gutter, and sidewalk contained within
the right-of-way widths specified in the Master Plan.
Access to Village J will be provided off of Poinsettia Lane, just west of
Melrose Drive, and directly across from the future street access to Village
S. The layout of Village K is such that there are two separate tracts, north
and south of each other. The southerly tract of Village K will take access off
Melrose Drive, directly across from the planned eastern terminus of Poinsettia
Lane. The northerly tract of Village K will have primary access from Palomar
Airport Road through a series of planned local streets. The required
secondary access will be provided through a similar local street connection that
will be constructed in the development of adjacent Master Plan villages.
A condition will be imposed on this project that if this secondary access route
is not in place at the time of construction of Village K, an interim secondary
access will be constructed to comply with the City’s cul-de-sac standard.
With regards to pedestrian circulation, the eastern edge of Village K and the
southern edge of Village J will contain portions of the Citywide trail system.
This 8’ wide trail will be constructed of decomposed granite, asphalt, and
concrete.
h -
CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/sDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
MAY 15, 1996
Sewer service to this project will be provided by public sewer lines that will
tie into a 12” sewer main to be installed to serve the entire Ranch0 Carrillo
development. The sewer lines for this project will drain by gravity flow in a
westerly direction to join the sewer main along Poinsettia Lane. This sewer
main will then connect with an offsite pump station, which will pump sewage
to the existing Buena/San Marcos Interceptor system presently located on El
Camino Real. As sewer improvements have yet to be installed for the entire
Master Plan area, a condition of this project will specify that sewer line
improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of any final map.
Domestic water will be provided to the project from trunk lines of the 12” water main beneath Melrose Drive. These trunk lines will enter the
development beneath various streets of each village. The 12” water main will
be installed concurrently with the construction of Melrose Drive. An 8”
reclaimed water line will be installed in Melrose Drive and will be tapped for
irrigation of the slope areas. As water improvements have yet to be installed
for the entire Master Plan area, a condition of this project will specify that
water line improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of the final map.
Surface drainage will be conveyed by standard curb and gutter to drain to an
underground storm drain system, with various approved outlet areas. A
broader drainage issue associated with the entire Ranch0 Carrillo development
is to provide drainage improvements to mitigate onsite runoff upstream of this
project to prevent adverse affects to downstream onsite and offsite properties.
A condition of this project will specify that construction of drainage mitigation
improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of any final map.
C. Planned Development Ordinance
The proposed 186 lot subdivision consists of 181 single family lots, 4 open space lots, which
are divided into two separate villages by the master plan (65 residential lots within Village
J, identified within the master plan as a standard R-1-7500 single family subdivision, and 116
residential lots within Village K, identified within the master plan as a planned unit
development with some lots less than 7500 square feet in size), and 1 future lot (part of
Village S). Within Village K residential lots range in size from 6,000 square feet to 23,000
square feet, with an average lot size of 9,200 square feet. Due to the minimum lot size of
6000 square feet within Village K, the Master Plan recognized that a planned unit
development would be required as part of the discretionary process for this site.
The Master Plan identified specific design criteria that reflected the standard R-l single
family nature of the village; 1) Lots with a minimum width of 60’ shall have a side yard
equal to 10% of the lot width, and 2) There is no requirement for the provision of common
recreational facilities as the majority of the lots in the subdivision have a lot size of 7500
square feet or greater, and the village is adjacent to significant open space and has several
points of access to the community trail system. With these exceptions Village K must satisfy
the Planned Development Ordinance requirements for single family development.
CT 93-01/PUD 95-05/SDY 95-13 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
MAY 15, 1996
The project’s design is consistent with design criteria specified by the Planned Development
Ordinance in that it is consistent with the General Plan and Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
single family residential land use designations for Village K and will provide the required
Circulation Element/Master Plan roadways. The proposed internal circulation pattern,
which includes 51’ to 74’ wide public streets, is designed to provide direct access to
individual units which contain at a minimum two car garages. The street system will provide
on-street guest parking directly in front of each unit. Each lot contains a minimum of
Wx15’ flat, usable rear private yard. The architecture will be consistent with approved
and/or proposed development in the surrounding Rancho Carrillo villages.
The following table summarizes Village Ks compliance with the Planned Development
Ordinance development standards:
:E COMPLIANCE N RD
Standard Proposed
Lot Size (min.) 3500 square feet 6,000-23,000 square feet
Front Yard Setback 20 Feet when garage faces
directly onto a street;
however setbacks may be
varied to a fifteen foot
average with a ten foot
minimum.
Same as required
Building Separation 10’ Minimum Minimum 10 Feet
Building height 30 Feet 28 Feet Maximum
~~~
Private Street Width
~ ~ ~ ~
36 Feet (parking both sides)
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~
Public streets with a minimum 36
Feet curb face to curb face width
(parking both sides)
Parking:
Resident
Guest
Second Dwelling Unit
2 car garagehnit minimum = 232
spaces
Onstreet parking (>116 spaces)
18 spaces
2/Unit = 232 spaces
32 spaces
l/unit = 18 spaces
RV Storage 134 (116sfd+lSsdu) x 20 =
2,680 square feet
Reservation of 2,680 square feet oi
RV storage space in the Carrillc
Master Plan Recreation Vehicle
Storage Lot.
3 car garage Storage Space Not Applicable
Recreation Space
Common Active
Standard: 200 sq. ft./unit Not required per Master Plan
recognition of standard
26,100 sq. ft. (15’x15’
private yard) Private Passive 26,100 square feet
CT 93-Ol/qUD
MAY 15, 1996
95-05/&A 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance)
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan requires project compliance with the City’s Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance; therefore, 15% of the total number of proposed units must be
affordable to low income households. Additionally, 10% of the required affordable units
must be three bedroom units. Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the
approval of site development plan for multi-family affordable projects. The required
findings include consistency with General Plan goals and policies, adequacy of the site and
street system, and a determination that the affordable units are compatible with surrounding
uses, and will not adversely impact the site or surrounding areas including traffic circulation.
The inclusionary affordable housing requirement for this project, including Village E, totals
46.8 dwelling units. Twenty-seven (27) of those units are proposed to be constructed as
second dwelling units. Additionally 5 units are proposed to be constructed in Village E as
3 bedroom units to meet that requirement and have been approved as part of the Site
Development Plan for that Village. Village E was identified within the Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan as a potential affordable housing site. The four 3-bedroom units Village J and
K are responsible for will be conditioned to be included within an Affordable Housing
Agreement which would link this site with their production. All necessary findings,
conditions, and development standards for those units are discussed within the Site
Development Plan and associated resolutions for Village E.
Villages J and K were approved at the growth management control points, therefore the
inclusion of any second dwelling units will subsequently raise the density within the
subdivision above the growth control point. However, as stated in the General Plan, a Site
Development Plan may be approved to allow an increase in density. The Land Use Element
of the General Plan, (RESIDENTIAL, C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION
PROGRAMS; C.2) states that density increases for the provision of affordable housing may
be approved through the processing of a Site Development Plan (SDP). The SDP shall be
evaluated relative to: (a) the proposal’s compatibility with adjacent uses; (b) the adequacy
of public facilities; and (c) the project site being located in proximity to a minimum of one
of the following: a freeway or major roadway, a commercial center, employment
opportunities, a City park or open space, or a commuter rail or transit center. Following
is a discussion of how the project is in compliance with each of the criteria.
(a) Because the second units are proposed to be incorporated within the
individual homes in a manner that is essentially indistinguishable from the
standard single family design, the issue of compatibility is satisfied.
03 Public facilities will be provided through the construction of the Master Plan
and subdivision infrastructure as noted previously. The adjacent Village E
under the same ownership is proposed at 70 dwelling units below the growth
management control point, while Villages J and K are 27 dwelling units above
which still leaves a surfeit from a facility planning as well as a quadrant cap
standpoint.
-
CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/aDy 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
MAY 15, 1996
(c) The subdivision is adjacent to significant open space which includes natural
areas, an elementary school site, and the Ranch0 Carrillo Park site. The
subdivision straddles Melrose Drive and is less than a mile from Palomar
Airport Road. The project is also within a mile of the “Platinum Corridor”,
the office and industrial development adjacent to Palomar Airport Road.
No modifications to development standards are proposed as part of this Site Development
Plan.
E. Growth Management Ordinance - Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan
The project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 18 in the City’s southwest
quadrant and is subject to the conditions of the Zone 18 LFMP. The 208 unit project is 27
units above the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance of 181 units, while the
adjacent Village E is 70 units below that allowance. The impacts on public facilities created
by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as
follows:
fizi$EF
1 E;aater Treatment
II Circulation
II Fire
II Open Space
II Water
723 square feet
Impacts Compliance
Yes
386 square feet I Yes
208 EDU
1.4 acres
600 cfs
Yes
Yes
Yes
2080 ADT I Yes
Stations 2, 5, and 6 I Yes
186 acres (Master Plan Performance Standard OS)
San Marcos Unified School District
Yes
Yes
208 EDU I Yes
45,760 GPD r Yes
F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the CMC)
The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a subdivision map to be filed in accordance with
Title 20 for any subdivision project. As conditioned, the proposed tentative map is in
compliance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance in that the lots are in accordance with the
provisions of Title 21 (Planned Development Ordinance) and all of the necessary
infrastructure improvements would be provided. The findings required by Title 20 can be
made for this project and are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3932, dated
May 15, 1996. i93
-
CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/SDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K
MAY 15, 1996
PAGE 13
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is located within the boundaries of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP-
139(E)) which regulates the entire 417.9 acre site. The direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts from the future development, including the mass grading of the
Master Plan area, have been analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-
04) certified by the City Council on July 27, 1993. Additional project level studies have
been conducted including a supplemental noise analysis and soils contamination assessment.
These studies provide more focused and detailed project level analysis and indicate that
additional environmental impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 91-04 would not
result from implementation of the project. This project qualifies as subsequent
development to both the Ranch0 Carrillo EIR and the City’s MEIR as identified in Section
21083.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued
a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance on March 25, 1996. The applicable mitigation
measures of Final EIR 91-04 and MEIR 94-01 are included as conditions of approval for
this project. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City’s MEIR found the
cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan are
significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the City Council adopted a
statement of overriding considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and
as to those effects, no additional environmental document is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
BH:bk
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3931
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3932
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3933
Location Map
Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated March 29, 1996
Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment
Disclosure Statement
Design Guidelines Village J
Design Guidelines Village K
Reduced Exhibits
Exhibits “A”- “CC” dated May 15, 1996.
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project
described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified
environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be
required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title: Ranch0 Carrillo Villages “J” and “K’
Project Location: Future intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Melrose Drive.
Project Description: 181 single family lot subdivision.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
ten (10) days of date of publication.
DATED:
CASE NO:
MARCH 29,1995
Planning Director
CT 93-01 /PUD 9505/SDP 95-13
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” AND “K”
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 29, 1996
BH:kr
___~ -~~~~-~~~ ~-~-~~ _____---
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO.: CT 93-Ol/PUD 9505/SDP 95-13
DATE: MARCH 12, 1996
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J and K
APPLICANT: UDC HOMES, INC.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES,
2386 Faradav. Suite 120, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 438-1465
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 4. 1996
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative tract mat, to subdivide a 186 lot r>lanned development with
181 single familitv homes and 27 second dwelling units.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
3 Land Use and Planning 3 Transportation/Circulation 3 Public Services
- Population and Housing
3 Geological Problems
3 Biological Resources
_ Energy and Mineral Resources
- Utilities and Service Systems
_ Aesthetics
_ Water
3 Air Quality
_ Hazards _ Cultural Resources
3 Noise 3 Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 3128195
_ DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. cl
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. q
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed. q
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been
prepared. El
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director Signature Date
Rev. 3128195
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved
EIR or Negative Declaration.
. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No
Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained
when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards.
. ‘Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting’evidence that the potential impact
is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances
requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures
required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare
an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations”
has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 3/28/95
-.
. . If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate
“Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration may be prepared.
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed
or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree
to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier
EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4)
through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a
potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a
potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 3/B/95
C -
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source #l)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source #3)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #3 )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (Source #3)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #3)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Sources 1 and 2)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #3)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #3)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source #3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #3)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source #3)
x
- x
- x
x -
x
x
x -
x
x
x
x
T Rev. 3128195
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d)
e)
f)
8)
W
9
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source
#3)
Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source #3)
Subsidence of the land? (Source #3)
Expansive soils? (Source #3)
Unique geologic or physical features? (Source
#3)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
(Source #3)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #3)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #3)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Source #3)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source #3)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Source #3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x -
x -
x
x
x -
x
6
3
Rev. 3128195
.-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #3)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #3) x
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? (Source #3)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (
Source #3)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(Source #3)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source #2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #3)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
x
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
-
x - Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #2)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(Source #3)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source #3)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
0
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source #3)
x
x
x
x
-
x
x -
x
x
1% Rev. 3128195
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #3)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Sources
#2 and 3)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Source #3) - x
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source #3)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #3)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Source #3)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(Source #3)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #2)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #2)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
(Source #2)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
^13
Rev. 3/28/95
. -
hues (and Supporting Information Sources):
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
b)
(3
d)
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation?
(Source #2)
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(Source #2)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (Source #2)
Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (Source #2)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #3)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #3)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(Source #3)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Source #2)
b) Police protection? (Source #2)
c) Schools? (Source #3)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source #2)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
e) Other governmental services? (Source #2)
9
x
+ Rev. 3/28}95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #2)
b) Communications systems? (Source #2)
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source #3)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #3)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #3)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #3)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
(Source #3)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source #3)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #3)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source
#3)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #3) x
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #3)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
10 9
Rev. 3/28f95
ksues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (Source #3)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(Source #3)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Source #3)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means
that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)(Source #2 - see 5. Air Quality and
6. Ciruclation Explanation) x
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x -
x -
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
IV 11 Rev. 3128195
-
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,“
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
12 ?
Rev. 3/28/95
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project grading consists of 462,500 cubic yards of cut and 754,600 cubic yards of fill to create 181
lots. The proposed project grading is consistent with the mass grading approved as part of the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan which covers the
entire Carrillo Ranch area. The certified Final Program EIR 91-04 addresses the potential
environmental impacts associated with future buildout of the area and is on file in the Planning
Department. Use of a Program EIR enables the City to characterize the overall environmental impacts
of the Master Plan area. The final Program EIR contains environmental analysis that serves as an
information base to be consulted when reviewing subsequent development (tentative maps). In addition
to the Final Program EIR, more recently, the City has certified a Final Master EIR for an update of
the 1994 General Plan. The Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact
mitigation for subsequent projects that are consistent with the plan, including projects within Ranch0
Carrillo.
Final Program EIR 91-04 included the agricultural, circulation, hydrology and water quality, geologic,
cultural, biological, aesthetic, noise and public facilities and services impacts of mass grading the entire
Master Plan area including Village J and K; therefore, the only additional studies submitted for the
project are a supplemental acoustical analysis and site assessment for soil contamination. The project
is 27 units above the number of units projected by the Master Plan (all of which are affordable second
dwelling units integrated into the single family unit) and the proposed single family development is
consistent with the grading design approved as part of the Master Plan. The project would not create
any additional environmental impacts that have not been evaluated and mitigated by the Final Program
EIR, therefore, as verified by the following evaluation, a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance
will be issued by the Planning Director for the project. All of the relevant Final Program EIR
mitigation measures are imposed upon the project as conditions of approval.
1.
2.
‘LAND USE
The project is consistent with the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan ensuring consistency with
approved land uses designated by the General Plan, zoning, and land use compatibility with
existing land uses. Villages J and K are in the center of the Master Plan area currently
surrounded by vacant land; therefore, they would not disrupt an established community.
Villages J and K consist of Las Flores loamy fine sands which is rated as Class IV agricultural
soils. Class IV soils are severely limited for crops and require careful management. Since soils
within the Master Plan are not considered to be prime agricultural soils, impacts to agricultural
lands are not considered to be significant.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Ranch0 Carrillo Program EIR determined that development of the Master Plan is not
significantly growth inducing due to its consistency with the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan which requires that public infrastructure and services to meet the demand
generated are provided concurrent with new development.
/lid
13 Rev. 3/28/95
3.
4.
5.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17 (approved 7-27-93) includes remedial grading, due
to landslides, unstable soils and undocumented fills, necessary for the development of the
Master Plan including Villages J and IS. Additional finish grading may be required for the
project, however, the project will not result in unstable earth conditions or increase the
exposure of people or property to geologic hazards since issuance of future grading permits will
ensure compliance with all City Grading Ordinance standards, Master Plan mitigation
measures, and the recommendations of a required detailed soil and geologic investigation to
prevent any geologic instabilities resulting from grading operations. The approval of HDP 91-
17 ensures that the existing topography will not be changed significantly except as required for
circulation arterial roadways and precludes the elimination of unique physical features.
Faulting and seismic@: Due to the distance of known faults from the project site (Rose
Canyon, Elsinore, and San Jacinto), design engineering of structures and features can provide
an adequate margin of safety for seismic events.
WATER
Major drainage facility design is required to avoid potential adverse effects of erosion,
sedimentation, scouring, and flooding from development of the entire Master Plan area
including Villages J and K. EIR 91-04 includes mitigation measures requiring that each
tentative map be conditioned to require the submittal of a hydrology analysis addressing
required flood attenuation, runoff flow reduction/siltation, and proper sizing of drainage
facilities. This hydrology analysis may cover the entire Master Plan area. Additionally, prior
to final map recordation or grading permit/building permit issuance, a financing plan for the
construction of the required drainage facilities must be approved.
AIR QUALITY
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San
Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional
air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to
buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on
the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a
variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1)
provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development;
2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and
Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of
transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building
and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted.
The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been
14 Rev. 3/28/95 14
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore,
the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01,
by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations”
for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all
subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project,
therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document
is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION
A total of approximately 2080 ADT generated by this project will be accommodated by existing
and future roadway improvements which the project is conditioned to construct. EIR 91-04
concluded that impacts to roadways could be mitigated to less than significant through
monitoring for consistency with Growth Management level of service standards for road
segments and intersections. As proposed, the project’s external circulation system would be
consistent with the Master Plan and the internal circulation system which includes a temporary
emergency/secondary access is consistent with City standards as determined by the City
Engineer.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be
adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be
severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control.
These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at
buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These
include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2)
provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes,
additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from
a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the
jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation
mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic,
therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required
15 9 Rev. 3128195
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
9.
because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-
246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This
“Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the
General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review
of circulation impacts is required.
Biological impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub are identified by EIR 91-04 and mitigation in
the form of a biological open space easement is proposed to reduce those impacts to
insignificant levels. The project is conditioned to require mitigation through the dedication of
an open space easement over natural open space, biological mitigation areas, and naturalized
areas.
HAZARDS
Prior to final map approval or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the
applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Preliminary Site Assessment (pp 39-
40) dated December 1993 performed by GEOCON Environmental Consultants which include
the performance of additional laboratory tests to confirm that the Soluble Threshold Limit
Concentration (STLC) of DDT, DDE, and Toxaphene does not exceed the values promulgated
by Title 22 if soils will be exported from the site. A report detailing the results of the
remediation program, if necessary, shall be submitted to the City.
10. NOISE
As proposed, the project includes 6’ high noise barrier walls along Melrose Drive to reduce
exterior noise levels to acceptable (560 dBA CNEL) levels in accordance with the provisions
of the Master Plan. Additionally, the project is conditioned to require that interior noise levels
do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
11&12 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
In accordance with mitigation required by EIR 91-04, the project is conditioned to comply with
the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan requiring that public facilities will be financed
and/or constructed concurrent with development. This includes the dedication of parkland and
a school site and financing plan to be approved by the San Marcos Unified School District for
elementary school facilities prior to recordation of any final map in Zone 18.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS- (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department
located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlshad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161)
1. Carlsbad General Plan adopted September 1994.
2. “Final Master EIR for the 1994 General Plan Update”
3. “Final Program EIR for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan” (EIR 91-04)
4. “Preliminary Site Assessment and Limited Sampling Report for Ranch0 Carrillo Villages E, J, K,
and a portion of Village S” dated December 1993.
16
9
Rev. 3128195
BACKGROUND DATA SHEEr
CASE NO: CT 93-Ol/PUD 9505/SDP 95-13
CASE NAME: Carrillo Ranch Villages “J” and “K”
APPLICANT: UDC Homes
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 186 Lot residential subdivision (181 single family, 4 ouen snace, and 1
future Village “S”), a planned unit development to allow certain lots in Village “K” to less than 7500 souare
feet in size, and a site develoument plan which includes a densitv bonus for the nroduction of 27 second
dwelling units the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: portion of Section 24. Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
meridian & a nortion of Sections 18 & 19. Township 12 South, Range 3 West.
APN: 221-012-09,222-011-05, and 215-031-05
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
Acres 75.5 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 186/208
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RLM
Density Allowed O-4 Dus/ac Density Proposed 3 (Village K) and 3.7 (Village J) Du’s/AC
Existing Zone P-C Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site P-C VACANT
North P-C VACANT
south P-C VACANT
East P-C VACANT
West P-C VACANT
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District San Marcos Water District CMWD Sewer District CMWD
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 208
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Sept. 5, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Negative Declaration, issued
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Prior Compliance, issued March 29, 1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted wfih Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: CT 93-Ol/PUD 95-05/SDP 95-13
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:= GENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: P-C
DEVELOPER’S NAME: UDC HOMES
ADDRESS: 438 Camino de1 Rio South, Suite 112B
PHONE NO.: (619) 298-8070 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 221-012-09, 222-01 l-05,
and 215-031-05
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 75.5 acres, 208 du
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Unknown
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
723
386
1.4
600
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided -
2080
2.5 & 6
25 acres
I.
J.
K.
L.
Schools: San Marcos Unified
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDU - 208
Identity Sub Basin - D
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD - 45760 59
The project is 27 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
DISCiOSURESTATEMEM
-o’,:CAmS STA?EUE.\7 :r 3:SCL3sUaE OF CEmAlN ~wNEASHIP IMTEPESTS 0~ A& APoQCAngNg WWIC,., W,& :E&,nE , I X~s~i~fU~ *C:Cpr ZN ThE 0AJ?T OF THE C47v CCLNCk OR ANY APPOINTEO SOARO. COMMISSION OR CCMM~EE,
I
?/ease Print)
c The fcllow~ng Information must be disclosed:
1. Aoolicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Hofman Planninq Associates 2386 Faraday, Suite 120
Carl&ad, CA 92008
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
uDcHoMEs,INc.
438 Camho de1 Rio South, Stiw
San Diego, CA 92108
-k
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation of partnership, list the names
addresses of all individusls owning more than 1096 ot the shares in the COrpOrltiOn or owning any panner’
interest in me partnership.
N/A
4. If any person idonUIkd pursuant to (1) or (2) abovo is a nonprofit orgmbtion or 8 trust, list the names
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organizrtion or as trustee or benefit of the wt.
N/A
I
,!
jl ,j I
4
,
;* %A
if [i ;! !I
!i
Ii i
I
FRMoml3 w90
2075 La8 Pawnr8 Orwa - Cartread. Calitorntr 920094859 l (619) 438-T 167
;fo~um sraremenr Pege 2
7. Have you had more than $250 worth of business fmnsacfed with uny member of City W, Bodlcf;
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twetve months?
Yes - No >( If yes, please indicate person(s)
c
Psnon io delinod as: ‘Any indkidud. Wm. kopu8mmh i& jointv-. umddon.~dub.-ofg~~.~.
ynBs~,mir~ury~~coumy,ci)yudeouny.cbymrinitt~~,~orochw~~klriorr,oruly~g~vortombinPion~ng~
un*’
(NOT: Attach dditlo~I p8g.s aa rtocmay.)
Signature of Owner/date
/Y %xd4 CA&e -&. Bill Hofman
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
FRMOOOl 12f91
VILLAGE J
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. INTRODUCTION
Village J is located north of Poinsettia Lane (identified as Carrillo Way within the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan) west of Melrose Avenue within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan.
This village is being developed as a standard R-l subdivision with minimum 7,500 square
foot lots. All lots will have or exceed the minimum width of 60 feet.
UDC proposes to develop Villages K & J with a semi-custom single family detached
home. Home buyers will be able to select their lot, the floor plan, elevation and a number
of other interior and exterior details to create a semi-custom look to their home. UDC will
restrict the color scheme of the homes so that two homes with the exact same color scheme
will not be plotted directly adjacent to one another. The ability for the purchaser to
become involved in the design and construction of their homes is highly appealing while
resulting in a streetscape that has more of the look of a custom home neighborhood. As
shown by following Section the various combinations of roof colors, floor plans, front
elevation treatments and color schemes will create a diversified streetscape.
2. UNIT MIX
Minimum Maximum
Number of roof colors 3 5 Number of floor plans 3 7
Number of front elevations per floor plan 2 4
Number of color schemes 4 6
Maximum building heights One-story home Two-story home
18 feet 28 feet
The developer of this village shall attempt to provide at least 8 -12% of the units as one
story units. If the applicant demonstrates that due to the market at the time of development
it is not be possible to market one story units, this village may be developed with all two
story units, as permitted under section 13 of these guidelines. If this Village is developed
with all two story homes, units located on comer lots shall have a single story edge for
Village J - Design Guidelines 1 April 3, 1996
. 40% of the buildings perimeter. This single story edge shall be located on the side of the
building adjacent to the street side yard.
3. PLOTTING
Plotting shall alternate floor plans so that no individual elevation is plotted for more than
60% of the total units on any individual street. No two units with identical front
elevations shall be plotted closer than 100 feet of each other on the same side of the street.
Identical front facade includes the same floor plan, same color scheme and same elevation.
Units may be plotted in phases or sequences as long as they are plotted in conformance
with the requirements of the Village J Design Guidelines and will be constructed with no
less than two units at a time. The units plotted on these lots may not utilize the entire
building envelope. Future homeowners shall have the ability to construct a room addition
within this envelope, as long as the overall building coverage does not exceed 40% of the
lot area.
The matrix included as exhibit A of these guidelines shall be attached to the plot plan for
each building phase of this tentative map. This matrix shall show how each phase and the
overall project complies with the % requirements of Sections 2(Unit Mix), 3(Plotting),
lO(Lot Drains), and 12(Second Units) of these guidelines. This matrix may be modified
subject to the approval of the Planning Director when the floor plans and elevations for
this tentative map are approved.
4. SETBACKS
Melrose Avenue All units shall maintain a 50’ minimum setback from Melrose ROW
Poinsettia Lane All units shall maintain a 40’ minimum setback from Poinsettia
Lane ROW
Front 20’ minimum
Rear Twice the required side yard (up to a maximum of 20 feet)
Side 10% of the lot width (up to a maximum of 10 feet). Per section
2 l.lO.O40a(2) (R-l Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, some
of the lots may have one side yard setback reduced to five feet. the
opposite side yard setback has been increased, as an offsetting
setback, a minimum distance equal to the reduction.
Village J - Design Guidelines 2 April 3, 1996
61
Note: Building envelope edges may adjust out prior to building permits if a retaining wall
of up to 3’ height (as allowed by the Master Plan) is added to the slope as long as
5’ minimum separation is provided between the toe of any slope and the unit.
The rear edge of building envelopes can expand out if a small (3 ’ max.) retaining
wall is approved to hold back the toe of slope to produce a minimum 20’ useable
rear yard.
5. ARCHITECTURE
A. The architectural theme of this project shall be selected from one or more of the
following styles that have been approved as a part of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Plan:
Spanish Colonial Revival Craftsman
California Mission Bungalow
Monterey Prairie
Spanish Eclectic California Ranch
Whichever style or combination of styles is used, it shall be compatible with the
adjacent villages.
B. The design of the unit exteriors shall be varied to create variety and interest within
the village. The following materials may be used on the front exteriors to create
this variety: brick or brick veneer, wood trim, stucco and stone.
C. A maximum of three chimneys shall be permitted on any one residence.
D. At least three color schemes shall be provided for the stucco portions of the units
within this village.
E. Twenty-five percent of exterior openings, doors/windows, shall be recessed or
projected a minimum of two inches and shall be with vinyl, wood or colored
aluminum frames (no mill finishes) or any other finishes new to the industry that
is acceptable to the Planning Director.
F. Different window types/material shall be limited to three per house. Any one
elevation shall have a predominant window treatment. Any variation will be to
upgrade to develop focus.
Village J - Design Guidelines 3 April 3, 1996
6
. 6. GARAGES
A. All garages shall have a minimum interior dimension of 20’ by 20’.
B. All garages that face on to the street shall provide a minimum of 20’ between the
face of the garage and the right-of-way to allow for driveway parking.
C. Three car garage units shall be a mix of units with three separate one car garage
doors all on the same plane and units with a two car garage door and a one car
garage door combination. Units with two car and one car garage door
combinations shall have a minimum 12” offset between the separate doors.
Driveways serving three car garages shall have a minimum width of 24’ at the back
of sidewalk and have a curvilinear side flaring to its greatest width at the entrance
to the garage except as modified for cul-de-sac or flag lots.
D. Garage doors shall be designed to set into the walls rather than being flush with
exterior walls.
7. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Accessory structures shall be permitted as allowed by section 21.10.050(1)(D) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code (R-l Zone).
8. WALLS AND FENCES
Walls and fences shall be provided as shown by the Village J Landscape Exhibit.
9. SIGN AGE
Signage will be provided to identify the village and provide directional information. All
signage will be developed in accordance with the Village J Landscape Exhibit. The exact
location of these signs will be determined prior to final map approval. Signage shall be
approved pursuant to Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Village J - Design Guidelines 4 April 3, 1996
6’ 8
10. LOT DRAINS
Private lot drains are approved for lots fronting on steep streets. Lot drains allow pad
elevations to be lowered along steeper streets thereby increasing rear yards and setbacks
from the tops of slopes. The maximum number of lots using these drains shall be limited
as follows:
Street Maximum % of Lots
< 2.5% 50%
< 2.5 - 5% 75%
< 5 - 7.5% 90%
< 7.5 - 12% 100%
11. R-l ZONE
All development in Village J shall be in conformance with the requirements of Chapter
21.10 (R-l Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
12. SECOND UNITS
A minimum of 9 of the lots in Village J may be developed with second dwelling units.
Second units required to fulfil1 the City’s Inclusionary requirement shall be developed
pursuant to Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and processed in
conformance with the requirements of the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan, and the Village J Design Guidelines. The units may be approved as
part of the Minor Planned Development Permit that approves the floor plans and
architecture for Village J as long as they are processed consistent with Section 21.10.015
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. At least 15% to the units proposed in each phase of
development shall contain second units until all nine of the second units have been
constructed.
13. MINOR MODIFICATIONS
A cumulative change to five or less of these provisions of these guidelines is considered
a minor modification and may be approved by the Planning Director. However, each
change must be determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved project.
Second dwelling units shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of Section
21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Village J - Design Guidelines 5 0 April 3, 1996
f4?
a
a Eg
‘f f 2 2 PZ Eif Oa 0 s
0: It;;Z inn ‘Sa ; 0s ;.P- I 3 : : n- i E2 :a;
-
-
-
-
-
-
-0 Q
4 5 := 1s il :m :a ) 'Z j3 ?Z '8 -a :ln jp :- ; 'S ES
i
k iz = 5 ,
L2 te =
E
2
F .- t: 9 n 5
X ‘E
g
cmuc
kf51 ihhi pgi
ZCiiiE
:, ! j
522
;S 13 s s
3 >
%amoc g 5 g 5‘: L EEhii LLL, 00882 GiiGL
C
VILLAGE K
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. INTRODUCTION
Village K consists of 116 residential and two open space lots near the center of the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan (MP 139E). The lots range in size from 6,000 to 23,000 square feet,
with an average lot size of 9,200 square feet. The lots within Village K terrace down the
hillside towards the south and west to take advantage of views into the valley.
UDC proposes to develop Villages K & J with a semi-custom single family detached
home. Home buyers will be able to select their lot, the floor plan, elevation and a number
of other interior and exterior details to create a semi-custom look to their home. UDC will
restrict the color scheme of the homes so that two homes with the exact same color scheme
will not be plotted directly adjacent to one another. The ability for the purchaser to
become involved in the design and construction of their homes is highly appealing while
resulting in a streetscape that has more of the look of a custom home neighborhood. As
shown by the following Section the various combinations of roof colors, floor plans, front
elevation treatments and color schemes will create a diversified streetscape.
2. UNIT MIX
The project shall include a mix of floor plans and elevations as follows:
Minimum Maximum
Number of roof colors 3 5
Number of floor plans 3 7
Number of front elevations per floor plan 2 4
Number of color schemes 4 6
Maximum building heights One-story home
18 feet
Two-story home
28 feet
The developer of this village shall attempt to provide at least 8 - 12% of the units as one
story units. If the applicant demonstrates that due to the market at the time of development
it is not be possible to market one story units, this village may be developed with all two
story units, as permitted under section 13 of these guidelines. If this Village is developed
with all two story homes, units located on comer lots shall have a single story edge for
Village K Design Guidelines 1 April 3,1996
3.
40% of the building’s perimeter. This single story edge shall be located on the side of the
building adjacent to the street side yard.
PLOTTING
Plotting shall alternate floor plans so that no individual floor plan is plotted for more than
60% of the total units on any individual street. No two units with identical front facades
shall be plotted closer than 100 feet of each other on the same street. Identical front
facade includes the same floor plan, same color scheme and same elevation. Units may
be plotted in phases or sequences as long as they are plotted in conformance with the
requirements of the Village K Design Guidelines and will be constructed with no less than
two units at a time. The units plotted on these lots may not utilize the entire building
envelope. Future homeowners shall have the ability to construct a room addition within
this envelope, as long as the overall building coverage does not exceed 50% of the lot area
for single story units and 40% of the lot area for two story units. Room additions or
accessory structures that are within the building envelopes will not require an amendment
to the Planned Development Permit for this project.
The matrix included as Exhibit A of these conditions shall be attached to the plot plan for
each building phase of this tentative map. This matrix shall show how each phase and the
overall project complies with the percent requirements of Sections 3 (Plotting), 5 D, E,
& G (Architecture), 6 C (Garages) and 10 (Lot Drains) of these guidelines. This matrix
may be modified subject to the approval of the Planning Director when the floor plans and
elevations for this tentative map are approved.
4. SETBACKS
Melrose All units shall maintain a 50’ minimum setback from Melrose ROW
Front In accordance with Section 21.45.090(b)(2)(A) of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code.
Rear All units shall have a minimum 15 ’ deep, flat usable rear yard.
Side 5’ minimum
10’ minimum for comer lots from street ROW and large slopes (per
grading ordinance). Building separation should range from 10’ - 20’ as
shown on the Architectural Data Exhibit.
Village K Design Guidelines 2 April 3, 1996
Q
Building Separation All units in Village K shall comply with the building separation
requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance, Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.45.090(5).
Note: Building envelope edges may adjust out prior to building permits if a
retaining wall of up to 3’ height (as allowed by the Master Plan) is added
to the slope as long as 5’ minimum separation is provided between the toe
of any slope and the unit.
The rear edge of building envelopes can expand out if a small (3 ’ max.)
retaining wall is approved to hold back the toe of slope to produce a
minimum 20’ useable rear yard.
5. ARCHITECTURE
A. The architectural theme of this project shall be selected from one or more of the .
following styles that have been approved as a part of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Plan:
Spanish Colonial Revival Craftsman
California Mission Bungalow
Monterey Prairie
Spanish Eclectic California Ranch
Whichever style or combination of styles is used in Village K, it shall be
compatible with the surrounding Villages. Architectural styles are described in the
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, General Community Development Standards pages
31-35.
B. When three or more 2 story units are in a row situated less than 15 feet apart, at
least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge with a depth of
not less than 10 feet adjacent to one of the other units. The roof covering the
single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2 story
element to the unit (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling to
a single story element).
C. When three 2 story units in a row situated between 15-20 feet apart, at least one
of the three units shall have a single story building edge with a depth of not less
than 5 feet adjacent to one of the other units. The roof covering the single story
units shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2 story element to the unit
(this in not intended to preclude long shed type roofs falling to a single story
element).
Village K Design Guidelines 3 April 3, 1996
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
Thirty-three per cent of all units shall have a single story edge for 40% of the
perimeter of the building. For the purpose of this guideline, the single story edge
shall be a minimum depth of 3 feet. The units qualifying under the 33 % shall be
distributed throughout the project.
At least 50% of the units in this project shall have at least four separate building
planes on street side elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches
and shall include, but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. The
minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on
the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 square feet
to receive credit under this section.
Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in paragraph E for front
elevations, except that the minimum depth between front and back planes on the
rear elevation shall be 3 feet.
At least 50% of the units in this project shall have one side elevation where there
are sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the side yard setback averages a minimum
of 7 feet.
50% of exterior openings (doors/windows) in the front of each unit shall be
recessed or projected a minimum of 2” and shall be with wood or colored
aluminum window frames (no mill finished).
The building materials for each unit shall be compatible and complementary to one
another as well as being compatible with surrounding villages.
The design of the units shall be varied to create variety and interest within the
village.
A maximum of three chimneys shall be permitted on any on residence.
At least three color schemes shall be provided for the stucco portions of the units
within this village.
Windows shall be located to maximize privacy. Windows shall be located so that
they are offset from windows in adjacent units, where that is not possible
landscaping or opaque windows shall be used to provide privacy.
At least three different roof colors shall be used on this project.
A combination of the following materials may be used in the front elevations of
these units to create a varied streetscape: vinyl, brick or brick veneer, wood trim,
stucco and stone.
Village K Design Guidelines 4 April 3, 1996
. 6. GARAGES
A.
B.
C.
All garages shall have a minimum interior dimension of 20’ by 20’.
All garages that face on to the street shall provide a minimum of 20’ between the
face of the garage and the ROW to allow for driveway parking.
Three car garage units shall be a mix of units with three separate one car garage
doors all on the same plane and units with a two car garage door and a one car
garage door combination. Units with two car and one car garage door
combinations shall have a minimum 12” offset between the separate garage doors.
Driveways serving three car garages shall have a maximum width of 24’ at the
back of the sidewalk and have a curvilinear side flaring to its greatest width at the
entrance to the garage except as modified for cul-de-sac or flag lots.
Garage doors shall be designed to set into the walls a minimum of 3” rather than
being flush with exterior walls.
D,
E.
7. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
15 % of all units in Village K shall contain two car facade garages.
Accessory structures shall be permitted as allowed by section 21.10.050(1)(D) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code (R-l Zone). Accessory structures constructed in conformance
with this standard shall not require an amendment to the Planned Development Permit for
this project unless the lot coverage as provided for in these guidelines would be exceeded.
8. WALLS AND FENCES
Walls and fences shall be provided as shown by the Village K Landscape Exhibit.
9. SIGN AGE
Signage will be provided to identify the Village and provide directional information. Ail
Signage will be developed in accordance with the Village K Landscape Exhibit. The exact
location of these signs will be determined prior to issuance of the first building permit. Signage
shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Village K Design Guidelines 5 April 3, 1996
. 10 LOT DRAINS
Private lot drains are approved for lots fronting on steep streets. Lot drains allow pad
elevations to be lowered along steeper streets thereby increasing rear yards and setbacks
from the tops of slopes. The maximum nnmber of lots using these drains shall be limited
as follows:
Street Maximum % of Lots
<2.5% 50%
c2.5 - 5% 75%
<5 - 7.5% 90%
<7.5 - 12% 100%
11. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
All development in Village K shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 21.45
(Planned Development Ordinance) of the Carlsbad Municipal code, except as may be
modified for the approved affordable housing incentives package for the combined
affordable housing site.
12. SECOND UNITS
A minimum of 18 of the lots in Village K may be developed with second dwelling units.
Second units required to fulfil1 the City’s Inclusionary requirement shall be developed
pursuant to Section 21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and processed in
conformance with the requirements of the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan, and the Village K Design Guidelines. The units may be approved
as part of the Minor Planned Development Permit that approves the floor plans and
architecture for Village K as long as they are processed consistent with Section 21.10.015
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. At least 15% of the units in each phase of development
shall contain second units until all eighteen second units have been constructed.
13. MINOR MODIFICATIONS
A cumulative change to five or less of these provisions of these guidelines is considered
a minor modification and may be approved by the Planning Director. However, each
change must be determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved project.
Second dwelling units shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of Section
21.10.015 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Village K Design Guidelines 6 April 3, I996
P c ‘ii E a
.E :
ed 5: c
- -
! 8.E I D c :ZE ilzm izg ,=CD i .j g
:5e i *cd
1
s! B 9
e
F
f
i
? P
u; Y si<:moc Rsss: ---_ Pn.n.0.
$$$j
:
I.. : ;cJ i’ I
I
D
i
i
% h
0 2
Humoc $5551 ---. PPn.0
gg$i u.u.Li
- - I I
P
T II ! ‘1 i
L
/ r
i
EXHIBIT 5
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. CT 93-011PUD 95OWSDP 95-13 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J&K - Request for a Tentative
Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit and Site Development Permit to subdivide a 75.5
acre parcel into 186 lots with 181 single family dwellings and 27 affordable units as second
dwellings on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, on either side of future
Melrose Drive, and north of future Poinsettia Lane, in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities
Management Zone 18.
MINUTES \&
PLANNING COMMISSION May 151995 Page 2
Chairman Compas advised the applicant that he has the right to be heard before a full Commission. Mike
Howes, Hofman Planning, 2388 Faraday, Suite 120, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, replied that he
wished to be heard tonight.
Chairman Compas announced to the applicant and public that this item, if approved, will be forwarded to
the City Council for their consideration.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, announced that the Chair had received a request for a continuance
from an adjacent property owner. He suggested that it would be appropriate that the requester be heard
prior to the staff report being given.
Ron Wootton, P. 0. Box 520, Vista, representing the Mary E. Bressi Trust, stated that he is concerned
about the development on the adjoining property. Each Commissioner has a copy of his letter dated
May 14, 1996, which gives detailed reasons of why he feels a continuance would be warranted. In effect,
the former trustee was assured by staff in 1993 that there would be no adverse impacts which would affect
the Bressi property. Since that time, there has been additional discussion, but there have been no
agreements. Several open issues still remain. The present trustees (the daughters of Mary Bressi) have
been actively trying to negotiate EIR mitigation measures with the Ranch0 Carrillo interests but are still far
apart on many issues. Villages J&K establish the final alignment of Poinsettia, which will abut the Bressi
property. There have been proposals for slope rights on the Bressi property for additional drainage facilities
to handle the roadway as well as major drainage facilities to handle all of the master plan facilities. He feels
it would be premature to assume that all of these facilities are in place, when the agreements have not yet
been finalized. He requested a continuance for 30 days to allow additional time to meet with the Ranch0
Carrillo interests and complete the negotiations.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if, in fact, the negotiations can be completed in 30 days. Mr. Wootton
replied that with the active participation of both parties, he feels everything can be completed enough to
move forward.
Commissioner Erwin inquired how the Bressi Trust would be negatively impacted if this project is heard
tonight. Mr. Wootton replied that the significant difference between this project and others is that it includes
the alignment of Poinsettia Lane at the boundary of the Bressi property. If the agreements are not
completed, something different might have to occur in this tentative map.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the Bressi Trust is proposing a different alignment for Poinsettia. Mr.
Wootton replied that they are not prepared to do that as yet until they have had sufficient opportunity to
review the alignment being proposed by staff.
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2388 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that he had written a letter dated May 15,1996 in response to Mr. Wootton’s
request for a continuance. He does not feel there is justification for a continuance since the proposed map
is in conformance with the previously approved Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan, the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Plan, and the Hillside Development Permit. None of the road alignments or grading
boundaries are any different from those previous approvals. The proposed tentative map is conditioned to
resolve all of the issues raised regarding these off-site improvements before development can occur. He would be opposed to a 30 day continuance because it would have an adverse impact on UDC.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the Planning Commission is the final approval on the site development
plan. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that the Planning Commission is the final approval
on the site development plan but it is not official until other items have been approved by the City Council.
Commissioner Noble inquired about the alignment. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, referred to
Condition #63 of Resolution No. 3931. The same condition was placed on all previous Carrillo Ranch
MINUTES iA
C
PLANNING COMMISSION May 15,1995 Page 3
tentative maps that have been heard. These approvals have already set the alignment of the various
streets including Poinsettia Lane.
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, replied that staff agrees with the applicant. Approval of this project tonight
would make for a better bargaining tool for the Bressi’s. They must complete the agreements before they
can final the map. This approval will also give them the tool for financing. Furthermore, it will take at least
30 days before this gets to the City Council. If the agreements have not been completed at that stage, the
Bressi Trust would have the ability to request a continuance again when this goes to the City Council.
Commissioner Monroy suggested that the Commission proceed tonight since it is not likely that the project
will reach the City Council before 30 days.
Commissioner Erwin would like a recommendation from staff either for or against a continuance. Mr.
Rudolf replied that there is no legally compelling reason to grant a continuance.
Commissioner Noble agrees with Commissioner Monroy. He stated that Condition #I63 covers the
alignment and all questions in Mr. Wootton’s letter have been covered in the resolution.
Chairman Compas inquired if anyone on the Commission wished to make a motion for a continuance.
There being no response, he requested staff to make their presentation.
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that in 1993 the City
Council approved the Carrillo Master Plan and, since that time, a number of the villages have wme forward
and have been approved. Villages J&K are presented tonight. All of the villages south of J&K have already
been approved. Village S is the school site. The school district has indicated that they want the site and
they are in the process of working out the purchase details. Mr. Hunter reviewed Villages J&K, discussing
in detail the number of single family dwelling units, second dwelling units, lot sizes, setbacks. He reviewed
the second dwelling units which will satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement. He reviewed the staff
memo dated May 15, 1996 which contained errata changes to Resolution No. 3931 and 3933. Mr. Hunter
showed slides of the site and stated that the proposed projects meets all existing requirements, are in total
conformance with the master plan, and the developer has not requested any special accommodations.
However, he noted that findings are included for a standard residential panhandle lot at the end of B Street
in Village J. This is due to the school district’s request to push Poinsettia slightly northward and is being
recommended to avoid any additional development of constrained land in that area. Staff recommends
approval.
Commissioner Noble inquired if the project satisfies all requirements for public facilities as set forth in
Zone 18 LFMP. Mr. Hunter replied yes.
Chairman Compas invited the applicant to speak.
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Cartsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that approval of this project will allow for the development of 181 single family
homes along with 27 affordable studio and one bedroom units. This will result in UDC providing all of their
affordable housing on site. The project is in conformance with all standards. He requested the Commission
to support the staff recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if he can accept the changes contained on the errata sheet. Mr. Howes
replied that he has reviewed it and the changes are acceptable.
Chairman Compas inquired about the construction schedule. Mr. Howes replied that they hope to begin
grading for the master plan in August 1996. Street improvements would wme after the mass grading. in
approximately nine months.
MINUTES
h A
PLANNING COMMISSION May 151995 Page 4
Chairman Compas opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Ron Wootton, P. 0. Box 520, Vista, representing the Mary E. Bressi Trust, addressed the Commission and
stated that he would like to go on record opposing this approval. When the master plan was approved in
1993, the Trust’s attorneys met with City staff and the developers. There was extensive discussion of many
issues mentioned in the staff report. There is a letter on file which summarized those informal agreements
and assurances. One particularly pertinent item is that the master plan amendment, according to the City
staff, does not adopt a specific alignment through Bressi Ranch nor is an alignment suggested by the City.
However, this tentative map does establish an alignment, which is contrary to staffs assurances at that
original meeting. Another point which staff agreed to is that the Trust would be provided an opportunity to
review and comment on such plans. He now understands that those plans are very far along in the process
and have yet to be reviewed by the trustees.
The applicant was given an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2388 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that he has nothing to add. The Ranch0 Carrillo property owners are anxious and
willing to meet with the trustees to resolve these issues. He believes this could be done easily and quickly,
and assured the Commission that nobody is trying to ignore them.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Compas declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, acknowledged that both he and Mr. Hunter had been in the meeting
with the Bressi Trust attorneys. The details of the EIR were reviewed in detail. The statement made by Mr.
Wootton is correct that the master plan did not set the alignment. It was the approval of the tentative maps
which set the alignment within the Ranch0 Carrlllo boundaries.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if the street alignment had previously been recommended for approval. Mr.
Wojcik replied that staff recommended approval of the tentative maps which set the alignment. Regarding
Mr. Wootton’s comment that the Bressi trustees were unable to review the plans, they were noticed about
the public hearings for each tentative map. That is a legal notification to property owners giving them an
opportunity to come in and review all plans and records on file.
Mr. Hunter stated that he would be happy to review these plans with the trustees if someone will just get in
touch with him about a date and time. He reiterated that the actual roadway through the Bressi Ranch has
not yet been set but could be influenced by the action being taken tonight.
Commissioner Monroy stated for the record that Mr. Howes had called him today but that nothing was
discussed which was not discussed this evening.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 3931, as amended by the errata addendum dated
May 15, 1998, and No. 3932 recommending approval of CT 93-01, PUD 95-05 and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3933, as amended by the aforementioned
addendum, approving SDP 9513 based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein. VOTE: 8-O AYES: Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Noble, Savary, Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None
MINUTES \@
- “W -----’ 1 L, ’ -
. . .: T 16 e/7
P FOR THE INFORMATION OF
SEPTEMBER 4, 1996
TO: CITY MANAGER
VIA: Planning Director
FROM: Associate Planner
THE CITY COUNCIL/ CITY MANAGER
CT 95-06 AND CT 93-01 -RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES E, J, AND K -
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The attached Housing Commission Resolution for Ranch0 Carrillo Villages E, J and
K was not available when the Agenda Bills for the subject projects were prepared
and is not listed as an attachment. The project is scheduled for City Council
hearing on September 10, 1996. Please distribute this resolution to City Council
members during their briefings so that they will be aware of the Housing
Commission recommendation for twenty-six affordable duplex units in Village E and
20 second dwelling units in Villages J and K. At the Planning Commission public
hearings, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Plan for 20
affordable duplex units in Village E and 27 second dwelling units in Villages J and
K. If the Council decides to accept the Housing Commission recommendation, the
Council will have to direct the City Attorney to return with documents which add a
condition to: 1) require the designation of six additional affordable duplex units in
Village E; 2) reduce the number of second dwelling units in Villages J and K from
27 to 20; and direct staff to process appropriate amendments to the related and
approved site development plans.
If you have any questions, please call me at extension 4477.
lIzLn2!*
ANNE HYSO
. I
1
c: Michael Holzmiller
Brian Hunter
, I, 1
_ .(
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-009
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT
OF TWENTY-SIX (26) TWO AND THREE BEDROOM
TOWNHOMES AND TWENTY (20) SECOND
DWELLING UNITS AFFORDABLE TO LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE RANCH0
CARRILLO MASTER PLAN FOR VILLAGES E, J
AND K TO SATISFY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS.
APPLICANT: UDC HOMES, INC
CASE NO.: AHP 96-04 (CT #93-01, PUD #95-05 and SDP #95-13)
WHEREAS, an Affordable Housing Project (AHP) Application (No. 96-
04) has been submitted to the City of Carlsbad’s Housing Commission for review and
consideration;
WHEREAS, said Housing Commission did, on the 8th date of August,
1996, hold a public meeting to consider said application; and
WHEREAS, at said public meeting, upon hearing and considering all
testimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. That based on the information provided within the application and
testimony presented during the public meeting of the Housing
Commission on August 8, 1996, the Commission recommends
APPROVAL of Affordable Housing Project (AHP) No. 9644
containing 26 affordable two and three bedroom townhomes and 20
second dwelling units to be affordable to low income (80% or below of
county median) households subject to the findings and conditions
outlined herein.
Y , *. L
.’ 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
HC Resolution No. 96-009
Page 2
3. That the Commission’s recommendation for approval of said affordable
housing project does not include support for any financial assistance for
the project.
FINDINGS:
1. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Carlsbad’s
Housing Element and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, the
lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, the Density Bonus Ordinance and the
affordable housing requirements of the approved Zone 20 Specific Plan.
2. The project will provide a total of 26 two and three bedroom townhomes and 20
second dwelling units (1 bedroom) affordable for rent to households at 80% or
below of the county median which meets a “medium priority” affordable
housing need as outlined within the City of Carlsbad’s approved 19952ooO
Consolidated Plan. The project, therefore, has the ability to effectively serve the
City’s housing needs and priorities as expressed in the Housing Element and the
Consolidated Plan.
CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
. . . . .
. . . . .
Recommendation of approval is granted for AHP No. 96-04, as shown on Site
Development Plan 95-13, incorporated by reference and on file in the Housing
and Redevelopment Department. Development shall occur substantially as
shown unless otherwise noted in the conditions of project approval by the City
Council.
Recommendation of approval is granted for AHP No. 96-W subject to the
condition that the applicant submit an acceptable schedule for construction of the
required ratio of income restricted units for inclusion in the final Affordable
Housing Agreement to be approved prior to Final Map. The schedule shall
indicate acceptable construction phasing for the affordable units in relation to
the construction of the market rate units.
For the second dwelling units, the applicant shall maintain rents at the allowable
affordable rate (based on household size) for low income households with
incomes equal to 80% or below of the county median upon lease up of units and
continuing for the full period of affordability.
II l . ’ . L
II
rc4 h
. ” i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HC Resolution No. 96-009
Page 3
4. For the for-sale townhomes, the units must either remain affordable for their
useful life or the developer shall allow for the transfer of the initial franancial
subsidy to another qualified household if there is a resale at a market price.
5. For Villages J and K, the affordable housing units must be deed restricted for
“the useful life of the project” which means a minimum of 55 years.
6. Upon final approval of said affordable housing project and prior to final map
approval, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with
the City of Carlsbad. The agreement shall be binding to all future owners and
successors in interest. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall include all
terms and conditions of said project approval and outline the incentives
(financial or other), if any, to be provided by the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOWED at a regular meeting of the
11
12
13 Housing Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 8th day of
14 Augustl, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
15
16
AYES: Calverley, Schiehuber, Walker, Sato, Rose, Escobedo,
Noble, Scarpelli
17 NOES:
18 ABSENT:
Wellman
None
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ABSTAIN: None
&“n RLEY,
Housing Con-u&ion
I EVAN E. BECKER
I Housing 6 Redevelopment Director
h
PROOF OF PUi ZATION
(2010 8 2011 C.C.P.)
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
August 28, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this 28th day
of Auqust, 1996
NW ----- ---2----
Signature -----
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
-
This sp; 1s for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
I Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing
--------------------------
.--_-----------------D-D---
l ,. .
vum iA *Kn-V hmN to & hause your Here& may be N”IbC IanEnCOr ” a&t&
re!fti’ hearkm
tit thg Cih, Cmndt at lhe Cttv of Carlsbad will bid E et thd F.iiu I% ,A-d, ~-&&& 1’2oo’-b&y *ge Drive
Isbad Cal&&~&‘;;rs~% P.M.. on Tuesday, September 10.1996, to consider ar &&c&n fgr a Tintative h&p and a Phwd Unit Deve!&pm?nt to supdlvidea 75.5 we parcel into a 188 bt subdivision witkl8t single fam~ty dwe”nfr Units, 2r afbrdable housing units in-ted as second d+vellii units into the slngte hmttt dwelling units, 4 open space lots, and 1 future lot (Village SI. on pr~e@ 9+irlb bcatetj 3autt1 of tM6maf Airport Road, on either side of fUtUi6 Melrose DnUrr. am
I& of f&we Peinsettia Lane, in the P-C Zdne, in Local Facilities ManaOemenl bne 18, and more particularly described as:
Portion’of Setztbn 24, Township 12 Sdutb,‘k “p” 4 WA, San Bernardino
&&&a, pnd a p&en bf Se&n8 18 and 19, ownshtp 12 s6um,-w 3 tJVest,.* Bern@no Merfdlan, in thb G!*,.?f,DerlsW+ WY Oy W Of&g&Tp 0fCalifohia. ‘.
it YOU have any ~LWSI&I repfdng We matter, please +I ?rian Hunter. in * flqilgQepa~, at (Sf$) GfJ-lT81, ext. 4457. -
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, May 15, 1996, to consider a request for a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit
Development Permit and Site Development Plan to subdivide a 75.5 acre parcel into 186
lots with 181 single family dwellings and 27 affordable units as second dwelling units
incorporated into the single family dwellings on property generally located south of
Palomar Airport Road, on either side of future Melrose Drive, and north of future
Poinsettia Lane, in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 18 and more
particularly described as:
Portion of Section 24, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian and a portion of Sections 18 and 19, Township 12 South, Range
3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after May 9, 1996. If you
have any questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at (619) 438-
1161, ext. 4457.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit
Development, and/or Site Development Plan, if approved, is established by state law
and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map,
Planned Unit Development, and/or Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described
in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior
to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 93-01 /PUD 95-05/SDP 95-l 3
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES “J” AND “K”
PUBLISH: MAY 2, 1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
BH:kr
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894 @
.
-
(F0r.m A)
TO:
FROM:
RE:
C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
BRIAN HUNTER
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materfals necessary for you to notice
RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES J AND K - CT 93-011PUD 95-05
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man-‘ Date
.CARRILLO RANCH0 PARTNERSHIP RANCH0 CARRILLO INC
591 CAMINO DE LA REINA 616 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR #300
SAN DIEGO CA 92 IO8 SAN DIEGO CA 92 130
U D C HOMES INC
2901 N CENTRAL AVE 1100
PHOENIX AZ 85012
SCRIPPS MEMORIALS H
9888 GENESEE AVE
LA JOLLA CA 92037
CARRILLO RANCH0 PARTNERSHIP
591 CAMINO DE LA REINA 616
SAN DIEGO CA 92 108
MARY BFUSSI-PERSIC EL1zziBEm BRESSI-WI-
P.O. Box 166
(PIRLSBAD, CA 92018
RANCH0 CARRILLO INC
12636 HIGH BLUFF DR #300
SAN DIEGO CA 92 130
WOODWARD VENTURES LTD
20301 SW ACACIA ST
SANTA ANA CA 92707
BR1 AN HUNTER PLANNING DEPARTMENT
l
-
‘4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR1
CT 93-1/m 95-5 - RANCH0 CARRILLO VILLAGES "J" AND "K"
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you because your interests may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, September 10, 1996, to consider an application for a Tentative Map and a Planned Unit Development to subdivide a 75.5 acre parcel into a 186 lot subdivision with 181 single family dwelling units, 27 affordable housing units incorporated as second dwelling units into the single family dwelling units, 4 open space lots, and 1 future lot (Village
S) I on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, on either side of future Melrose Drive, and north of future Poinsettia Lane, in the P-C Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 18, and more particularly described as:
Portion of Section 24, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, and a portion of Sections 18 and 19, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Brian Hunter, in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4457.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map and/or Planned Unit Development in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. The time within which you may judicially challenge this tentative subdivision map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short.
APPLICANT: UDC Homes, Inc. PUBLISH: August 28, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
RANCH0 CARRILLO
VILLAGES “J” & “K”
CT 93-01